Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2025 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
Statement of problem: Achieving accurate implant positioning in complete arch prostheses is essential for long-term prosthetic success. Intraoral scanners (IOSs) have been widely used, but their accuracy may decline for complete arch prostheses because of limitations such as scanning errors, anatomic variations, and soft tissue mobility. Although photogrammetry (PG) has emerged as an alternative digital technique, potentially offering higher accuracy, current evidence for its use remains fragmented and inconsistent. Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the accuracy defined in terms of the trueness and precision of photogrammetry systems compared with that of intraoral scanners for capturing the 3-dimensional positions of dental implants in complete arch or multi-implant-supported prostheses. Material and methods: This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) framework. Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from January 2015 to April 2025. Eligible studies included in vitro, in vivo, or clinical trials comparing PG systems with IOSs for complete arch implant recordings and reporting quantitative accuracy outcomes. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I² statistic. Accuracy was evaluated in terms of distance deviation, angular deviation, and root mean square (RMS) error for both trueness and precision (α=.05). Results: A total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. PG demonstrated significantly better trueness than IOSs in distance deviation (P=.001) and angular deviation (P=.02). Precision analysis also favored PG, with lower distance deviation (P=.01) and angular deviation (P<.001). Conclusions: Photogrammetry systems offer significantly greater trueness and precision than intraoral scanners in capturing the 3D positions of dental implants. These findings support the clinical use of PG as a reliable recording method of improving the outcomes of implant-supported prostheses.