Systematic review and meta-analysis compares photogrammetry and intraoral scanning for full-arch implant accuracy

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions by comparing photogrammetry and intraoral scanning (IOS) techniques through a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Cochrane protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to May 2024. Keywords based on the PICO question were used without time or language restrictions. In vitro studies assessing full-arch implant rehabilitations that compared photogrammetry to IOS were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quin Tool Method. Data were analyzed through metaanalysis in RevMan (Cochrane), grouping the results into three subgroups: angle deviation, precision (μm), and trueness (μm). RESULTS: The search yielded 6,348 studies: 11 met the eligibility criteria, and 7 provided sufficient data for quantitative meta-analysis. Photogrammetry demonstrated superior precision, with a mean difference (MD) of -0.03 (95% CI: -0.04, -0.02) and a high weight of 94.2%, indicating consistent evidence. The results for angle deviation were MD = -0.12 (95% CI: -0.16, -0.08, P < .00001), and for trueness the results were MD = -0.16 (95% CI: -0.19, -0.13, P < .00001). The photogrammetry group also showed favorable results. Although trueness exhibited expressive MD values, it had a lower overall weight (5.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, photogrammetry significantly improves the accuracy of fullarch implant rehabilitations compared to IOS. These findings support the adoption of photogrammetry for more accurate and consistent outcomes in dental implant procedures.