Non-Cochrane · DTA · PM40311637
Accuracy of Stereophotogrammetry Technique versus Intraoral Scanners for Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Jain Saurabh, Daak Huda Ali, Someli Lena Abdulrahman, et al. · European journal of dentistry · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.1055/s-0045-1806935
Findings
Population Complete-arch implant digital impressions (in vitro models and in vivo patients)
9 findings
| Stereophotogrammetry-based scanner (mainly PIC) | Intraoral scanners (IOS) | Precision: 3D deviation Mostly in vitro models; some in vivo · Overall (IOS subgroups pooled) | SMD 1.75 [1.41, 2.10] GRADE not reported 8 studies · 240 participants |
| Stereophotogrammetry-based scanner (mainly PIC) | Intraoral scanners (IOS) | Precision: 3D deviation Mostly in vitro models; some in vivo · IOS type: TRIOS 3 | SMD 2.19 [1.66, 2.72] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 108 participants |
| Stereophotogrammetry-based scanner (mainly PIC) | Intraoral scanners (IOS) | Trueness: 3D deviation Mostly in vitro models; some in vivo · Overall | SMD 2.00 [1.23, 2.77] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 60 participants |
| Stereophotogrammetry-based scanner (mainly PIC) | Intraoral scanners (IOS) | Linear deviation (impression accuracy) Mostly in vitro models; some in vivo · IOS type: TRIOS 3 | SMD 0.43 [-0.08, 0.95] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 60 participants |
| Stereophotogrammetry-based scanner (mainly PIC) | Intraoral scanners (IOS) | Precision: 3D deviation Mostly in vitro models; some in vivo · IOS type: iTero Elements 5 | SMD 1.64 [1.08, 2.19] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 90 participants |
| Stereophotogrammetry-based scanner (mainly PIC) | Intraoral scanners (IOS) | Trueness: angular deviation Mostly in vitro models; some in vivo · Overall | SMD 1.92 [1.18, 2.66] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 60 participants |
| Stereophotogrammetry-based scanner (mainly PIC) | Intraoral scanners (IOS) | Precision: angular deviation Mostly in vitro models; some in vivo · Overall (IOS subgroups pooled) | SMD 0.86 [0.45, 1.27] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 112 participants |
| Stereophotogrammetry-based scanner (mainly PIC) | Intraoral scanners (IOS) | Linear deviation (impression accuracy) Mostly in vitro models; some in vivo · Overall (IOS subgroups pooled) | SMD 0.33 [-0.11, 0.77] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 82 participants |
| Stereophotogrammetry-based scanner (mainly PIC) | Intraoral scanners (IOS) | Precision: 3D deviation Mostly in vitro models; some in vivo · IOS type: TRIOS 4 | SMD 0.82 [0.00, 1.64] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 32 participants |
Included primary studies 25
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cheng 2024 Accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and… PMID:38421115 | 2024 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kosago 2023 Comparison of the accuracy between conventional and various digital implant impressions for an implant-supported mandibular complete… PMID:36083233 | 2023 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Ma 2021 Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in… PMID:34893053 | 2021 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Pozzi 2023 Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impression with intraoral optical scanning and stereophotogrammetry: An in vivo prospective… PMID:37485737 | 2023 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Cheng 2024 Accuracy of edentulous full‐arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and… DOI:10.1111/clr.14252 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Fu 2023 Accuracy of intraoral scan with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry compared with open tray impressions for complete‐arch… DOI:10.1111/clr.14183 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Fu 2024 Accuracy of intraoral scan with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry compared with open tray impressions for complete-arch… PMID:37746813 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kosago 2023 Comparison of the accuracy between conventional and various digital implant impressions for an implant‐supported mandibular complete… DOI:10.1111/jopr.13604 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Ma 2021 Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in… DOI:10.1186/s12903-021-02005-0 | 2021 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Orejas-Perez 2022 In Vivo Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: Comparison of the Precision of Three Optical Impression Systems DOI:10.3390/ijerph19074300 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Orejas-Perez 2022 In Vivo Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: Comparison of the Precision of Three Optical Impression Systems. PMID:35409985 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Pinto 2023 Accuracy of different digital acquisition methods in complete arch implant-supported prostheses: An in vitro study DOI:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.07.008 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Pinto 2024 Accuracy of different digital acquisition methods in complete arch implant-supported prostheses: An in vitro study. PMID:37620183 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Pozzi 2023 Accuracy of complete‐arch digital implant impression with intraoral optical scanning and stereophotogrammetry: An in vivo prospective… DOI:10.1111/clr.14141 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Pozzi 2024 Accuracy of intraoral optical scan versus stereophotogrammetry for complete-arch digital implant impression: An <i>in… DOI:10.2186/jpr.jpr_d_22_00251 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Pozzi 2024 Accuracy of intraoral optical scan versus stereophotogrammetry for complete-arch digital implant impression: An in vitro study. PMID:37574278 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Revilla-Leon 2021 Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with… DOI:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.005 | 2021 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Revilla-Leon 2021 Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with… PMID:32386912 | 2021 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Sallorenzo 2022 Comparative study of the accuracy of an implant intraoral scanner and that of a conventional intraoral scanner for complete-arch fixed… DOI:10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.032 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Sallorenzo 2022 Comparative study of the accuracy of an implant intraoral scanner and that of a conventional intraoral scanner for complete-arch fixed… PMID:33836855 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Tohme 2021 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Tohme 2023 Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch… DOI:10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.006 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Tohme 2023 Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch… PMID:34112521 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Yan 2023 Accuracy of 2 direct digital scanning techniques—intraoral scanning and stereophotogrammetry—for complete arch implant-supported fixed… DOI:10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.03.033 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Yan 2023 Accuracy of 2 direct digital scanning techniques-intraoral scanning and stereophotogrammetry-for complete arch implant-supported fixed… PMID:35667889 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match). Only the non-Cochrane dental reviews have study lists, so overlap with Cochrane reviews is not counted yet.
| Review | Shared studies | Jaccard |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions in Edentulous Jaws: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies. (2026) | 4 | 0.07 |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Complete-arch implant impressions (human or in vitro models) | Complete-arch implant models (9 in vitro studies) and edentulous arches (4 in vivo studies) |
| Intervention | Stereophotogrammetry-based dental scanners | PIC dental scanner (stereophotogrammetry) pooled; ICam4D studies not pooled |
| Comparison | Intraoral scanners (IOS) | Intraoral scanners: TRIOS 3, TRIOS 4, iTero Element 2 and 5 (8 studies in quantitative analysis) |
| Outcomes | Accuracy (trueness and precision; linear, 3D and angular deviations) | Linear deviation, trueness (3D, angular) and precision (3D, angular) pooled as standardized mean differences (fixed effect) |
| Study designs | In vitro and in vivo studies published in English up to September 2024; animal studies, unpublished reports, theses and case reports excluded | 13 studies in qualitative synthesis (9 in vitro, 4 in vivo); 8 in meta-analysis |
| Timing | Not specified | Not specified |