Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

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

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider photogrammetry may offer more accurate full-arch implant impressions than intraoral scanning in edentulous patients.

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies assessing full-arch implant rehabilitations in completely edentulous patients. Eleven studies met eligibility criteria, with seven providing sufficient data for quantitative meta-analysis. The review compared the accuracy of photogrammetry to intraoral scanning (IOS) for full-arch implant impressions.

The authors synthesized findings on precision, trueness, and angle deviation. For precision, the mean difference favored photogrammetry (MD = -0.03; 95% CI: -0.04, -0.02). For angle deviation, the mean difference was MD = -0.12 (95% CI: -0.16, -0.08; P < .00001). For trueness, the mean difference was MD = -0.16 (95% CI: -0.19, -0.13; P < .00001). The weight of evidence for precision results was high at 94.2%.

The authors note the limitations of this study. Follow-up duration was not reported. Safety data, including adverse events, were not reported. The practice relevance statement supports the adoption of photogrammetry for more accurate and consistent outcomes in dental implant procedures, but this is a qualitative conclusion from the review.

The review does not describe a specific study population, intervention details, or adverse events beyond the scope of the included in vitro studies. The certainty of the evidence is noted as high for precision results, but the overall applicability to clinical practice requires further investigation.

If you're getting dental implants to replace all your teeth, the way your dentist takes the impression matters. A new analysis of 11 studies shows that photogrammetry, a 3D imaging technique, may be more accurate than the more common intraoral scanning method.

The researchers looked at how well each method captured the position of implants in the jaw. They found that photogrammetry was significantly better in three key areas: precision (how consistent the measurements were), angle deviation (how closely the angles matched the real implants), and trueness (how close the digital model was to the actual implant positions). The differences were small but statistically significant, meaning they are unlikely to be due to chance.

These results come from lab studies, not real patients, so the findings may not fully apply in a dental office. Still, the evidence is strong enough to suggest that photogrammetry could lead to better-fitting implant-supported teeth and fewer adjustments down the line.

What this means for you:
Photogrammetry may offer more accurate implant impressions than intraoral scanning.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedMay 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
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.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.