Comparison of the Accuracy of Conventional, Digital, and Stereophotogrammetric Impression Techniques in Implant-Supported Restorations: A Systematic Review
-
Saba Behzadian
,
Sara Majidinia
,
Alireza Sarraf Shirazi
,
Mahsa Valizadeh
,
Sara Ziaaddini
,
Shayan Yousefi
Abstract
Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the primary digital accuracy outcomes, including trueness and precision, and the secondary clinical adaptation outcome, prosthetic fit, of conventional, digital, and stereophotogrammetric (SPG) impression techniques in implant-supported restorations. This review proposes that digital and SPG techniques offer higher accuracy relative to conventional techniques. Materials and Methods: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, five databases were searched between December 2024 and September 2025. Of 28,922 screened records, 13 in vitro studies met inclusion criteria. Data extraction was independently conducted by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using the QUIN tool, and random-effects meta-analyses (RevMan and CMA) were performed to calculate standardized mean differences (SMD, 95% CI). Results: For the primary digital accuracy outcomes, SPG generally achieved the highest trueness and precision, with significant advantages in several comparisons (SMD = –1.60 to –3.80, p < 0.05). For the secondary clinical adaptation outcome, digital impressions showed significantly improved prosthetic fit compared with conventional techniques (SMD = –1.65, p = 0.001). Conclusion: In vitro evidence suggests that digital impressions provide better fit than conventional techniques, while SPG achieves the highest overall accuracy. High-quality clinical studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine their long-term prosthetic and biological implications. Keywords: Dental implants; Dental prosthesis; Dental impression technique; Stereophotogrammetry.
1. Verma A, Singh SV, Arya D, Shivakumar S, Chand P. Mechanical failures of dental implants and supported prostheses: A systematic review. Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research. 2023;13(2):306-14.
2. Pedrinaci I, Hamilton A, Lanis A, Sanz M, Gallucci GO. The Bio-Restorative Concept for Implant-Supported Restorations. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2024;36(11):1516-27.
3. Tabesh M, Alikhasi M, Siadat H. A Comparison of implant impression precision: Different materials and techniques. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018;10(2):e151-e7.
4. Cheng J, Zhang H, Liu H, Li J, Wang HL, Tao X. Accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2024;35(5):560-72.
5. Kernen-Gintaute A, Akulauskas M, Kernen F, Zitzmann NU, Spies BC, Burkhardt F. Accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions in edentulous jaws: A clinical comparative study. Journal of Dentistry. 2025;153:105559.
6. Jasim AG, Abo Elezz MG, Altonbary GY, Elsyad MA. Accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillary full-arch screw-retained prosthesis: A crossover randomized trial. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2024;26(4):714-23.
7. Kim Y, Kim D, Son H, Hong S-J, KIm H-S, Pae A. Effect of Number and Angulation of Implants on Accuracy of Digital Impression in Completely Edentulous Arch. The International journal of prosthodontics.1-27.
8. Papaspyridakos P, Vazouras K, Chen Y-w, Kotina E, Natto Z, Kang K, et al. Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2020;29(8):660-78.
9. Albanchez-González MI, Brinkmann JC-B, Peláez-Rico J, López-Suárez C, Rodríguez-Alonso V, Suárez-García MJ. Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022;19(4):2026.
10. Harfagar G, Solis S, Hernandez M, Fehmer V, Sailer I, Azevedo L. Trueness and Passivity of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions in Edentulous Jaws: A Prospective Clinical Study. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2025;27(2):e70022.
11. Arikan H, Muhtarogullari M, Uzel SM, Guncu MB, Aktas G, Marshall LS, et al. Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis when using an auxiliary geometry device. Journal of Dental Sciences. 2023;18(2):808-13.
12. Huang R, Liu Y, Huang B, Zhang C, Chen Z, Li Z. Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: An in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2020;31(7):625-33.
13. Ma J, Zhang B, Song H, Wu D, Song T. Accuracy of digital implant impressions obtained using intraoral scanners: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo studies. International Journal of Implant Dentistry. 2023;9(1):48.
14. Park JS, Alshehri YFA, Kruger E, Villata L. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions in partially dentate patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2025;160:105918.
15. Hung Lam T, Minh Cuong P, Hoang Nam N, Huyen Bao Tran V, Viet H. Enhanced Patient Satisfaction with Digital Impressions Using 3Shape TRIOS 3 Move Scanner for Single-Implant Crowns. Applied Sciences. 2025;15(6):2881.
16. García-Gil I, Cortés-Bretón-Brinkmann J, Jiménez-García J, Peláez-Rico J, Suárez-García MJ. Precision and practical usefulness of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry: A systematic literature review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2020;12(8):e784-e93.
17. Gaikwad AM, Joshi AA, de Oliveira-Neto OB, Padhye AM, Nadgere JB, Ram SM, et al. An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Evaluating Different Impression Techniques for Implant-Supported Prostheses in Partially and Completely Edentulous Arches. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2022;37(6):1119-37.
18. Kosago P, Ungurawasaporn C, Kukiattrakoon B. Comparison of the accuracy between conventional and various digital implant impressions for an implant-supported mandibular complete arch-fixed prosthesis: An in vitro study. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2023;32(7):616-24.
19. Pozzi A, Agliardi E, Lio F, Nagy K, Nardi A, Arcuri L. Accuracy of intraoral optical scan versus stereophotogrammetry for complete-arch digital implant impression: An in vitro study. Journal of Prosthodontic Research. 2023;68(1):172-80.
20. Pozzi A, Arcuri L, Carosi P, Laureti A, Londono J, Wang H-L. Photogrammetry Versus Intraoral Scanning in Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2025;27(3):e70059.
21. Pozzi A, Carosi P, Gallucci GO, Nagy K, Nardi A, Arcuri L. Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impression with intraoral optical scanning and stereophotogrammetry: An in vivo prospective comparative study. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2023;34(10):1106-17.
22. El Naggar AO. A COMPARISON OF PASSIVE FIT BETWEEN CONVENTIONAL AND DIGITAL IMPRESSION TECHNIQUES FOR AN ALL-ON-6 MAXILLARY FRAMEWORK. Advanced Dental Journal. 2024;6(4):845-52.
23. Menini M, Setti P, Pera F, Pera P, Pesce P. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(3):1253-62.
24. Ragab R, Shaker A, ElKhashab M. Four Digital Intraoral Scanners versus Conventional Impression Technique: An In-Vitro Evaluation of Fit Accuracy on Multiunit Abutments for Cross Arch Implant Restorations. Ain Shams Dental Journal. 2024;35(3):324-33.
25. Mahmoud RA, Hakim AAA, Rady NA. Effect of different impression techniques on marginal integrity of CAD-CAM milled all-on-four mandibular frameworks: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25(1):497.
26. Cevik P, Yilmaz B, Kahveci Ç, Abou-Ayash S, Çakmak G. Effect of scanned arch, level of impression, and impression technique on the accuracy of impressions for complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. J Dent. 2025;162:106049.
27. Drancourt N, Auduc C, Mouget A, Mouminoux J, Auroy P, Veyrune JL, et al. Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Impressions for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses: An In Vitro Study. J Pers Med. 2023;13(5).
28. Shaikh M, Lakha T, Kheur S, Qamri B, Kheur M. Do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to conventional impressions? An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2022;22(4):398-404.
29. Lyu M, Li Y, Xu D, Xing Q, Zhang S, Yuan Q. Accuracy of Photogrammetry, Intraoral Scanning, and Conventional Impression for Multiple Implants: An In Vitro Study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2025;27(1):e13419.
30. Liu M, Fu XJ, Lai HC, Shi JY, Liu BL. Accuracy of traditional open-tray impression, stereophotogrammetry, and intraoral scanning with prefabricated aids for implant-supported complete arch prostheses with different implant distributions: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;132(3):602.e1-.e9.
31. Tohme H, Lawand G, Chmielewska M, Makhzoume J. Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;129(2):354-62.
32. Joensahakij N, Serichetaphongse P, Chengprapakorn W. The accuracy of conventional versus digital (intraoral scanner or photogrammetry) impression techniques in full-arch implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review. Evidence-Based Dentistry. 2024;25(4):216-7.
33. Jain S, Daak HA, Someli LA, Alamer AY, Apratim A, Akoor RMA, et al. Accuracy of Stereophotogrammetry Technique versus Intraoral Scanners for Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur J Dent. 2025.
34. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
35. Sheth VH, Shah NP, Jain R, Bhanushali N, Bhatnagar V. Development and validation of a risk-of-bias tool for assessing in vitro studies conducted in dentistry: The QUIN. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2024;131(6):1038-42.
36. Presotto AG, Bhering CL, Mesquita MF, Barão VA. Marginal fit and photoelastic stress analysis of CAD-CAM and overcast 3-unit implant-supported frameworks. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(3):373-9.
37. Bayramoğlu E, Kulak Özkan Y, Yildiz C. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of press-on-metal and conventional ceramic systems for three- and four-unit implant-supported partial fixed dental prostheses: An in vitro study. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2015;114(1):52-8.
2. Pedrinaci I, Hamilton A, Lanis A, Sanz M, Gallucci GO. The Bio-Restorative Concept for Implant-Supported Restorations. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2024;36(11):1516-27.
3. Tabesh M, Alikhasi M, Siadat H. A Comparison of implant impression precision: Different materials and techniques. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018;10(2):e151-e7.
4. Cheng J, Zhang H, Liu H, Li J, Wang HL, Tao X. Accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2024;35(5):560-72.
5. Kernen-Gintaute A, Akulauskas M, Kernen F, Zitzmann NU, Spies BC, Burkhardt F. Accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions in edentulous jaws: A clinical comparative study. Journal of Dentistry. 2025;153:105559.
6. Jasim AG, Abo Elezz MG, Altonbary GY, Elsyad MA. Accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillary full-arch screw-retained prosthesis: A crossover randomized trial. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2024;26(4):714-23.
7. Kim Y, Kim D, Son H, Hong S-J, KIm H-S, Pae A. Effect of Number and Angulation of Implants on Accuracy of Digital Impression in Completely Edentulous Arch. The International journal of prosthodontics.1-27.
8. Papaspyridakos P, Vazouras K, Chen Y-w, Kotina E, Natto Z, Kang K, et al. Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2020;29(8):660-78.
9. Albanchez-González MI, Brinkmann JC-B, Peláez-Rico J, López-Suárez C, Rodríguez-Alonso V, Suárez-García MJ. Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022;19(4):2026.
10. Harfagar G, Solis S, Hernandez M, Fehmer V, Sailer I, Azevedo L. Trueness and Passivity of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions in Edentulous Jaws: A Prospective Clinical Study. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2025;27(2):e70022.
11. Arikan H, Muhtarogullari M, Uzel SM, Guncu MB, Aktas G, Marshall LS, et al. Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis when using an auxiliary geometry device. Journal of Dental Sciences. 2023;18(2):808-13.
12. Huang R, Liu Y, Huang B, Zhang C, Chen Z, Li Z. Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: An in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2020;31(7):625-33.
13. Ma J, Zhang B, Song H, Wu D, Song T. Accuracy of digital implant impressions obtained using intraoral scanners: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo studies. International Journal of Implant Dentistry. 2023;9(1):48.
14. Park JS, Alshehri YFA, Kruger E, Villata L. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions in partially dentate patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2025;160:105918.
15. Hung Lam T, Minh Cuong P, Hoang Nam N, Huyen Bao Tran V, Viet H. Enhanced Patient Satisfaction with Digital Impressions Using 3Shape TRIOS 3 Move Scanner for Single-Implant Crowns. Applied Sciences. 2025;15(6):2881.
16. García-Gil I, Cortés-Bretón-Brinkmann J, Jiménez-García J, Peláez-Rico J, Suárez-García MJ. Precision and practical usefulness of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry: A systematic literature review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2020;12(8):e784-e93.
17. Gaikwad AM, Joshi AA, de Oliveira-Neto OB, Padhye AM, Nadgere JB, Ram SM, et al. An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Evaluating Different Impression Techniques for Implant-Supported Prostheses in Partially and Completely Edentulous Arches. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2022;37(6):1119-37.
18. Kosago P, Ungurawasaporn C, Kukiattrakoon B. Comparison of the accuracy between conventional and various digital implant impressions for an implant-supported mandibular complete arch-fixed prosthesis: An in vitro study. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2023;32(7):616-24.
19. Pozzi A, Agliardi E, Lio F, Nagy K, Nardi A, Arcuri L. Accuracy of intraoral optical scan versus stereophotogrammetry for complete-arch digital implant impression: An in vitro study. Journal of Prosthodontic Research. 2023;68(1):172-80.
20. Pozzi A, Arcuri L, Carosi P, Laureti A, Londono J, Wang H-L. Photogrammetry Versus Intraoral Scanning in Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2025;27(3):e70059.
21. Pozzi A, Carosi P, Gallucci GO, Nagy K, Nardi A, Arcuri L. Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impression with intraoral optical scanning and stereophotogrammetry: An in vivo prospective comparative study. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2023;34(10):1106-17.
22. El Naggar AO. A COMPARISON OF PASSIVE FIT BETWEEN CONVENTIONAL AND DIGITAL IMPRESSION TECHNIQUES FOR AN ALL-ON-6 MAXILLARY FRAMEWORK. Advanced Dental Journal. 2024;6(4):845-52.
23. Menini M, Setti P, Pera F, Pera P, Pesce P. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(3):1253-62.
24. Ragab R, Shaker A, ElKhashab M. Four Digital Intraoral Scanners versus Conventional Impression Technique: An In-Vitro Evaluation of Fit Accuracy on Multiunit Abutments for Cross Arch Implant Restorations. Ain Shams Dental Journal. 2024;35(3):324-33.
25. Mahmoud RA, Hakim AAA, Rady NA. Effect of different impression techniques on marginal integrity of CAD-CAM milled all-on-four mandibular frameworks: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25(1):497.
26. Cevik P, Yilmaz B, Kahveci Ç, Abou-Ayash S, Çakmak G. Effect of scanned arch, level of impression, and impression technique on the accuracy of impressions for complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. J Dent. 2025;162:106049.
27. Drancourt N, Auduc C, Mouget A, Mouminoux J, Auroy P, Veyrune JL, et al. Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Impressions for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses: An In Vitro Study. J Pers Med. 2023;13(5).
28. Shaikh M, Lakha T, Kheur S, Qamri B, Kheur M. Do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to conventional impressions? An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2022;22(4):398-404.
29. Lyu M, Li Y, Xu D, Xing Q, Zhang S, Yuan Q. Accuracy of Photogrammetry, Intraoral Scanning, and Conventional Impression for Multiple Implants: An In Vitro Study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2025;27(1):e13419.
30. Liu M, Fu XJ, Lai HC, Shi JY, Liu BL. Accuracy of traditional open-tray impression, stereophotogrammetry, and intraoral scanning with prefabricated aids for implant-supported complete arch prostheses with different implant distributions: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;132(3):602.e1-.e9.
31. Tohme H, Lawand G, Chmielewska M, Makhzoume J. Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;129(2):354-62.
32. Joensahakij N, Serichetaphongse P, Chengprapakorn W. The accuracy of conventional versus digital (intraoral scanner or photogrammetry) impression techniques in full-arch implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review. Evidence-Based Dentistry. 2024;25(4):216-7.
33. Jain S, Daak HA, Someli LA, Alamer AY, Apratim A, Akoor RMA, et al. Accuracy of Stereophotogrammetry Technique versus Intraoral Scanners for Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur J Dent. 2025.
34. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
35. Sheth VH, Shah NP, Jain R, Bhanushali N, Bhatnagar V. Development and validation of a risk-of-bias tool for assessing in vitro studies conducted in dentistry: The QUIN. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2024;131(6):1038-42.
36. Presotto AG, Bhering CL, Mesquita MF, Barão VA. Marginal fit and photoelastic stress analysis of CAD-CAM and overcast 3-unit implant-supported frameworks. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(3):373-9.
37. Bayramoğlu E, Kulak Özkan Y, Yildiz C. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of press-on-metal and conventional ceramic systems for three- and four-unit implant-supported partial fixed dental prostheses: An in vitro study. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2015;114(1):52-8.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 13, No 2 (Spring 2026) | |
| Section | Review Article(s) | |
| Keywords | ||
| Dental implants; Dental prosthesis; Dental impression technique; Stereophotogrammetry. | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
How to Cite
1.
Behzadian S, Majidinia S, Sarraf Shirazi A, Valizadeh M, Ziaaddini S, Yousefi S. Comparison of the Accuracy of Conventional, Digital, and Stereophotogrammetric Impression Techniques in Implant-Supported Restorations: A Systematic Review. J Craniomaxillofac Res. 2026;2026(2):151-167.
