Comparative analysis of full arch implant impressions using photogrammetry vs conventional approaches

Abstract

Introduction: For older patients’ full arch dental implant rehabilitation is a viable solution, eliminating the need for removable of dentures. The registration of implant positions relies on conventional impression materials, involving implant impression posts, open trays, and dental stone models. The restoration of full arch implant-supported prostheses is costly, time-intensive, and inaccurate. Inaccuracies compromise prosthesis passivity, potentially leading to crestal bone loss, and prosthesis or implant failures. This is relevant following full arch dental implant surgery, due to significantly reduced bone volume following vertical alveoloplasty, meaning further revision surgery may not be possible. Aims and objectives: This review compares the accuracy of conventional polyether or polyvinyl siloxane dental implant impressions with commercially available photogrammetry units. It also investigates potential differences in patient or clinician satisfaction. Materials and methods: Three major databases (DoSS, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) were searched through electronically and manually, retrieving articles up to June 6, 2023. MeSH terms and keywords with Boolean connectors were employed, supplemented by a grey literature exploration using Google Scholar. The identified studies underwent screening via abstracts, or full texts when necessary, and final data extraction followed. Results and discussion: Five articles meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria were retrieved, with two in vivo studies and three in vitro studies. These comprised three case-control trials, one controlled clinical trial, and one randomized controlled trial. Concerning the accuracy of photogrammetry, two studies highlighted comparable or superior accuracy compared to
conventional impressions. Two studies concluded that photogrammetry displayed lower accuracy than conventional impressions. One study found no clinically significant deviations between the two methods in terms of implant success or marginal bone loss but did note a significant improvement in patient and clinician outcomes. Conclusion: Photogrammetry impressions is a promising alternative to conventional impressions, showing improved patient and clinician satisfaction while exhibiting comparable or enhanced
accuracy.