Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate accuracy, scanning time, and patient satisfaction of photogrammetry (PG) systems for recording the 3D position of dental implants.
METHODS: A literature search was completed in five databases: PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, World of Science, and Cochrane. A manual search was also conducted. Studies reporting the use of commercially available PG systems were included. Two investigators evaluated the studies independently by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal. A third examiner was consulted to resolve any lack of consensus.
RESULTS: A total of 14 articles were included: 3 in vivo, 6 in vitro, and 6 case report manuscripts. One clinical study evaluated trueness, another one tested precision, and the third one assessed impression time and patient and operator satisfaction. All the in vitro studies evaluated the trueness and precision of a PG system. Additionally, all the reviewed studies investigated completely edentulous conditions with multiple implants. The number of placed implants per arch among the reviewed clinical studies varied from 4 to 8 implants, while the number of implants placed on the reference casts included 4, 5, 6, or 8 implants. Not all the studies compared the accuracy of PG systems with conventional impression methods, using intraoral scanners as additional experimental groups. For the PIC system, trueness ranged from 10 to 49 μm and precision ranged from 5 to 65 μm. For the iCam4D system, trueness ranged from 24 to 77 μm and the precision value ranged from 2 to 203 μm.
CONCLUSIONS: PG systems may provide a reliable alternative for acquiring the 3D position of dental implants. However, this conclusion should be interpreted carefully, as one study reported a mean precision value of one PG system higher than the clinically acceptable discrepancy. Lower scanning time and higher patient and operator satisfaction have been reported when compared with conventional techniques. Further studies are needed to increase the evidence regarding the accuracy, scanning time, and patient and operator satisfaction of the commercially available PG systems.
METHODS: A literature search was completed in five databases: PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, World of Science, and Cochrane. A manual search was also conducted. Studies reporting the use of commercially available PG systems were included. Two investigators evaluated the studies independently by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal. A third examiner was consulted to resolve any lack of consensus.
RESULTS: A total of 14 articles were included: 3 in vivo, 6 in vitro, and 6 case report manuscripts. One clinical study evaluated trueness, another one tested precision, and the third one assessed impression time and patient and operator satisfaction. All the in vitro studies evaluated the trueness and precision of a PG system. Additionally, all the reviewed studies investigated completely edentulous conditions with multiple implants. The number of placed implants per arch among the reviewed clinical studies varied from 4 to 8 implants, while the number of implants placed on the reference casts included 4, 5, 6, or 8 implants. Not all the studies compared the accuracy of PG systems with conventional impression methods, using intraoral scanners as additional experimental groups. For the PIC system, trueness ranged from 10 to 49 μm and precision ranged from 5 to 65 μm. For the iCam4D system, trueness ranged from 24 to 77 μm and the precision value ranged from 2 to 203 μm.
CONCLUSIONS: PG systems may provide a reliable alternative for acquiring the 3D position of dental implants. However, this conclusion should be interpreted carefully, as one study reported a mean precision value of one PG system higher than the clinically acceptable discrepancy. Lower scanning time and higher patient and operator satisfaction have been reported when compared with conventional techniques. Further studies are needed to increase the evidence regarding the accuracy, scanning time, and patient and operator satisfaction of the commercially available PG systems.
摘要：
目的：为了评估准确性，扫描时间,以及用于记录牙科植入物的三维位置的摄影测量（PG）系统的患者满意度。
方法：在5个数据库中完成了文献检索：PubMed/Medline，Scopus,Embase,科学世界,还有Cochrane.还进行了手动搜索。包括报告使用市售PG系统的研究。两名研究人员通过应用JoannaBriggs研究所的批判性评估独立评估了这些研究。咨询了第三位审查员，以解决任何缺乏共识的问题。
结果：共包括14篇文献：体内3篇，6在体外，和6例报告手稿。一项临床研究评估了真实性，另一个测试精度，第三个评估了印象时间以及患者和操作者的满意度。所有体外研究都评估了PG系统的真实性和准确性。此外,所有审查的研究都调查了多个植入物的完全无牙状况。在所审查的临床研究中，每弓放置的植入物数量从4到8不等。而放置在参考管模上的植入物数量包括4、5、6或8个植入物。并非所有研究都将PG系统的准确性与常规印象方法进行了比较，使用IOS作为额外的实验组。对于PIC系统，精度范围为5至65μm，精度范围为10至49μm。对于iCam4D系统，精度范围为24至77μm，精度范围为2至203μm。
结论：PG系统可能为获取植入物位置提供可靠的替代方案。然而,这个结论应该仔细解释，因为一项研究报告一个PG系统的平均精度值高于临床上可接受的差异。与常规技术相比，已报告较低的扫描时间和较高的患者\'和操作员满意度。需要进一步的研究来增加关于准确性的证据，扫描时间,以及患者和操作员对市售PG系统的满意度。本文受版权保护。保留所有权利。
方法：在5个数据库中完成了文献检索：PubMed/Medline，Scopus,Embase,科学世界,还有Cochrane.还进行了手动搜索。包括报告使用市售PG系统的研究。两名研究人员通过应用JoannaBriggs研究所的批判性评估独立评估了这些研究。咨询了第三位审查员，以解决任何缺乏共识的问题。
结果：共包括14篇文献：体内3篇，6在体外，和6例报告手稿。一项临床研究评估了真实性，另一个测试精度，第三个评估了印象时间以及患者和操作者的满意度。所有体外研究都评估了PG系统的真实性和准确性。此外,所有审查的研究都调查了多个植入物的完全无牙状况。在所审查的临床研究中，每弓放置的植入物数量从4到8不等。而放置在参考管模上的植入物数量包括4、5、6或8个植入物。并非所有研究都将PG系统的准确性与常规印象方法进行了比较，使用IOS作为额外的实验组。对于PIC系统，精度范围为5至65μm，精度范围为10至49μm。对于iCam4D系统，精度范围为24至77μm，精度范围为2至203μm。
结论：PG系统可能为获取植入物位置提供可靠的替代方案。然而,这个结论应该仔细解释，因为一项研究报告一个PG系统的平均精度值高于临床上可接受的差异。与常规技术相比，已报告较低的扫描时间和较高的患者\'和操作员满意度。需要进一步的研究来增加关于准确性的证据，扫描时间,以及患者和操作员对市售PG系统的满意度。本文受版权保护。保留所有权利。
