
==== Front
Heliyon
Heliyon
Heliyon
2405-8440
Elsevier

S2405-8440(24)12813-7
10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36782
e36782
Research Article
Knowledge structure and research hotspots on digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis: A bibliometric analysis
Gao Yutong a
Zhao Mingyu a
Xia Shici a
Sa Yue sayue@whu.edu.cn
ab⁎
a Department of Prosthodontics, State Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, Hubei Key Laboratory of Stomatology, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, PR China
b Department of Prosthodontics, The State Key Laboratory Breeding Base of Basic Science of Stomatology (Hubei-MOST) & Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, PR China
⁎ Corresponding author. No. 237, Luoyu Road, Wuhan City, 430079, PR China. sayue@whu.edu.cn
23 8 2024
15 9 2024
23 8 2024
10 17 e3678227 6 2024
8 8 2024
22 8 2024
© 2024 The Authors
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Background

Digital scanning is increasingly widely used for implant-supported complete-arch prosthese. However, a quantitative literature analysis is lacking for this field. This study aims to conduct a bibliometric analysis to summarize the knowledge structure and research hotspots of digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis.

Materials and methods

Relevant articles and reviews, published between 1994 and 2023, were obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). Indicators such as publication count, annual growth, citation count, co-citation count, impact factor, Journal citation reports (JCR) division, H-index are used to assess the contribution of countries, journals, authors or the quality of articles. Visual maps, cluster analysis and keyword cloud are used to evaluate the cooperation pattern and topic trends.

Results

580 eligible publications, including 555 articles and 25 reviews, were analyzed. The United States is the leading country in this area, received the most citations. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is the scientific journal with the highest impact. The analysis of keywords and ongoing trials shows that the accuracy of relevant techniques is a current hot topic in this field.

Conclusion

In recent years, digital scanning technique for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis has made rapid progress. By reviewing the published literature, we found the United States is the global leader in the field of digital scanning for complete-arch implant prosthesis. Accuracy is the core word in this field, more scientific evidence is needed to support the clinical application of digital scanning in this field.

Keywords

Digital scanning
Implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis
Bibliometric
==== Body
pmc1 Introduction

The fabrication of implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis is considered a challenging process in implant dentistry [1]. The conventional fabrication method starts with a physical impression, requiring a variety of intricate manual manufacturing steps, materials, equipment as well as experience and skills of the operator [2]. Over the past few decades, dental practice has been transformed by the introduction of digital scanning techniques. The advantages of digital scanning have been demonstrated in many studies, including reducing patient discomfort, saving time, eliminating the risk of deformation of impression materials, as compared to conventional impression [[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]]. However, the application of digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis still faces some challenges.

Accurately acquiring the implant positions is crucial for the fit and long-term success of implant-supported prosthesis, as insufficient accuracy may lead to potential mechanical and biological complications [[3], [4], [5], [6]]. For edentulous arch, the conventional open-tray splinted impression remains the preferred choice clinically based on its high accuracy, which will be transferred to 3D digital model with an extraoral laboratory scanner [14,[19], [20], [21]]. However, there is a risk of impression deformation and triggering the gag reflex caused by the use of impression materials [22,23]. Currently, intraoral scanning (IOS) is a common solution for directly capturing the intraoral morphology data of the soft tissue and scan bodies [24,25]. Despite the lack of anatomic indexes of the edentulous arch creates challenges for IOS, recent studies have demonstrated that IOS achieves clinically acceptable accuracy when applied to edentulous implant arches [[26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]]. Furthermore, photogrammetry is also available for accurately capturing the 3D implant positions, which is commonly used in conjunction with IOS. By integrating the accurate implant position data acquired through photogrammetry and the mucosal morphology data acquired through IOS, a complete-arch digital implant scan can be achieved [34]. Digital scanning based on IOS and photogrammetry might provide a clinically acceptable alternative to conventional complete-arch implant impressions, which is currently a hot topic in oral clinical practice. Therefore, it is necessary to understand its overall knowledge structure and clinical application prospects.

To bridge the knowledge gap and further advance the field, a comprehensive report on knowledge structure and research hotspots of digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis is urgently needed. Currently, many scientific methods are employed to systematically comprehend the present condition of an academic discipline. Among these methods, bibliometric analysis utilizing mathematical and statistical approaches has emerged as a prevalent tool for gaining insights into the overall knowledge structure and research priorities within an academic domain [[35], [36], [37], [38]]. However, there have been no comprehensive analysis of global research trends of this field. This study aimed to use bibliometric methods to describe the current status of digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis, assess research prospects, and predict new trends in the development of this field.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Study design

A descriptive and observational scientometric study was conducted using the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) databases, which is a comprehensive database for scientific research [39]. The information retrieval process was performed on December 24, 2023 and the search covered the period of 1994–2023. The search strategy was formulated using the identified common keywords about digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis. Relevant publications were searched and downloaded for bibliometric analysis.

2.2 Search strategy

Only articles or reviews in English published between January 1, 1994, and December 24, 2023, were selected. Other types of publications were excluded, including meeting abstract, proceeding paper, book chapters, letter, editorial material, early access, correction and news item. According to the related literature, we identified the common keywords about digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis, which were used to determine the search strategy. By using search terms “digital scanning”, “implant”, “complete-arch” and their synonyms, a retrieval formula was established using the logical operators “AND” and “OR” (Table S1). All the data for this study were obtained from a public database, eliminating the need for ethics approval or informed consent.

2.3 Bibliometric indicators

In this study, various indicators are used to assess the contribution of countries, journals, authors or the quality of articles such as publication count, annual growth, citation count, co-citation count, impact factor, JCR division, H-index. Visual maps and cluster analysis are used to evaluate the cooperation among countries, journals and authors. The keyword cloud is used to analyze the popularity, novelty and relevance of key topics.

2.4 Data analysis and visualization

The data from related articles were obtained and saved in both plain text format and csv (comma separated value) format, comprising information on title, publication year, authors, affiliations, journal of publication, citations, and keywords of these publications. These information were later analyzed and visualized using various tools, including the Online Analysis Platform of Literature Metrology, Scimago Graphica, VOSviewer, and “bibliometrix” package in R software 4.3.1. The Online Analysis Platform visualized publication volume trends over time (https://bibliometric.com/app). Scimago Graphica illustrated collaboration networks among countries/regions [39]. VOSviewer is powerful in visualizing the time trends of countries' cooperation, co-citation references, and keyword frequencies [40]. The “bibliometrix” package was used to analysis the publishing time, publishing journals, authors’ institutions, and keywords. It further visualized the collaborative links among countries, institutions, and authors [41].

3 Results

3.1 Annual trend in publication growth

During the period from January 1, 1994, to December 24, 2023, a total of 580 publications concerning digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis were identified, including 555 articles and 25 reviews (Fig. S1). The number of publications increased yearly (Fig. 1A), with an annual growth rate of 16.31 %. Related publication outputs remained low before 2018. Beginning in 2018, publication volume in this field surged. Over the last 5 years, annual publications have exceeded 50, highlighting that this field has attracted growing attention. By December 2023, the count reached 80, with expectations for further growth.Fig. 1 Overview of the related publications in the field of digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis. (A). The annual number of publications from 1994 to 2023 and its growth trend. (B). Trends in the proportion of annual publications in different countries.

Fig. 1

3.2 Distribution of countries/regions

59 countries and regions were involved in research of digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis. Table 1 and Fig. 1B display the top 10 countries/regions with the highest publication counts. The most productive country/region in this field was the United States (n = 188, 32.41 %), followed by Italy (n = 97, 16.72 %), and Spain (n = 61, 10.52 %). Among the top 10 countries/regions, the United States published the most cited papers with 3910 citations, followed by Italy, which ranked second, with 2353 citations, and Switzerland, which ranked third, with 1199 citations. However, the average number of citations in the Netherlands is 43.58, which is much higher than the other 9 countries, indicating that the articles from the Netherlands appear to be of high quality and influence. It is worth mentioning that China's publication volume has surged in the past five years, and its annual publication volume was second only to the United States and Italy. Although China is actively participating in this field, its average number of citations (10.37) ranked at the bottom among the top 10 countries. In addition, there is exceedingly close international collaboration in this domain. Among the 580 publications, 35.53 % exhibited international collaboration (n = 206), with 57.77 % of these collaborations involving American co-authors (n = 119). The cooperation patterns among various countries/regions, revealing substantial international collaboration, are prominently displayed within European and American nations (Fig. 2, Fig. S2). Notably, collaboration with the US was the most frequent. Node size in Fig. 2 corresponds to each country's publication count, while line thickness indicates the level of cooperation between countries.Table 1 Top 10 productive countries with the highest numbers of publications on digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis.

Table 1Rank	Country	Publications (n)	Percentage (n/580)	Citations	Average citations	
1	USA	188	32.41 %	3910	20.80	
2	Italy	97	16.72 %	2353	24.26	
3	Spain	61	10.52 %	940	15.41	
4	Switzerland	58	10.00 %	1199	20.67	
5	China	51	8.79 %	529	10.37	
6	Germany	48	8.28 %	1126	23.46	
7	Brazil	35	6.03 %	553	15.80	
8	South Korea	29	5.00 %	415	14.31	
9	Turkey	28	4.83 %	438	15.64	
10	Netherlands	24	4.14 %	1046	43.58	

Fig. 2 The network map of collaboration relations between countries generated with Scimago Graphica.

Fig. 2

3.3 Distribution of institutions

Table 2 presents the top 10 institutions with the most publications, half of which are from the United States. According to the number of publications, Tufts University (n = 37) led the top, followed by University of Bern (n = 34), and Ohio State University (n = 30). However, when considering average citations, the top three shifted to University of Michigan (33.67), Tufts University (32.16), and University of Zurich (29.38). VOSviewer was utilized for analyzing and visualizing the institutions driving advancements in the field. Fig. 3 visualized the co-authorship network map of institutions, where distinct colors signify various clusters. Cooperation among major institutions showed a regional tendency. For instance, the institutions in Chinese-speaking areas tended to collaborate more within those Chinese -speaking countries.Table 2 Top 10 institutions with the most publications of digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis.

Table 2Rank	Institution	Country	Publications	Citations	Average citations	
1	Tufts University	USA	37	1190	32.16	
2	University of Bern	Switzerland	34	533	15.68	
3	Ohio State University	USA	30	438	14.60	
4	University of Washington	USA	25	292	11.68	
5	University of Rochester	USA	25	378	15.12	
6	Complutense University of Madrid	Spain	21	392	18.67	
7	University of Zurich	Switzerland	21	617	29.38	
8	University of Michigan	USA	15	505	33.67	
9	University of Padua	Italy	13	226	17.38	
10	Yonsei University	South Korea	13	170	13.08	

Fig. 3 The co-authorship network visualization map of institutions.

Fig. 3

3.4 High yield and highly-cited journals

During the period from January 01, 1994 to December 24, 2023, 580 publications on research concerning digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis appeared in 70 journals, with 24 journals featuring at least 5 publications. An analysis of co-authorship in the journals was carried out, and the results are presented in the network map in Fig. 4. Among the 580 publications, the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (4.6, Q1) published the highest number (Table 3), with 105 articles (18.10 % of the total), followed by Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry (4.0, Q1), and Clinical Oral Implants Research (4.3, Q1). Moreover, by leveraging VOSviewer data and the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) evaluation system, we observed that the top 10 journals primarily belong to the Q1 category, suggesting that the majority of the publications were published in prestigious and impactful journals. Regarding citations, the top three changed to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (4.6, Q1), Clinical Oral Implants Research (4.3, Q1), and International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants (2.0, Q3) (Table 3). Besides, 4 of the top 10 journals had an IF above 4.Fig. 4 The co-authorship map of high-yielding journals.

Fig. 4

Table 3 Top 10 high-yield and high-cited journals related to digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis.

Table 3Rank	Journal	IF and JCR division (2022)	Publications	Citations	Average citations	
High-yield journals	
1	Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry	4.6, Q1	105	2186	20.82	
2	Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry	4.0, Q1	58	1183	20.40	
3	Clinical Oral Implants Research	4.3, Q1	51	1952	38.27	
4	International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants	2.0, Q3	44	1608	36.55	
5	Journal of Dentistry	4.4, Q1	32	229	7.16	
6	Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research	3.6, Q1	24	652	27.17	
7	International Journal of Prosthodontics	2.3, Q3	15	331	22.07	
8	Journal of Clinical Medicine	3.9, Q2	15	117	7.80	
9	Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry	3.2, Q2	15	193	12.87	
10	Bmc Oral Health	2.9, Q2	14	527	37.64	
High-cited journals	
1	Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry	4.6, Q1	105	2186	20.82	
2	Clinical Oral Implants Research	4.3, Q1	51	1952	38.27	
3	International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants	2.0, Q3	44	1608	36.55	
4	Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry	4.0, Q1	58	1183	20.40	
5	Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research	3.6, Q1	24	652	27.17	
6	Bmc Oral Health	2.9, Q2	14	527	37.64	
7	Plos One	3.7, Q2	4	345	86.25	
8	International Journal of Prosthodontics	2.3, Q3	15	331	22.07	
9	Journal of Prosthodontic Research	3.6, Q1	10	304	30.40	
10	Journal of Dentistry	4.4, Q1	32	229	7.16	

3.5 High impact researchers

A total of 1896 researchers contributed to studies on digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis. The top 10 productive authors are listed in Table 4. Papaspyridakos P was the most productive researcher with 31 publications and 1213 citations. And there is a clear gap between Papaspyridakos P and other authors from the perspective of H-index and citation. His research team had the highest citation count, with their articles cited 1213 times, averaging 39.13 citations each, which indicated that Papaspyridakos P's team had made great contributions to this field. Notably, top 10 authors were almost all from USA. In addition, as shown in Fig. 5, there is a rich global level of collaborative relationships among the authors.Table 4 Top 10 authors with the most publications on digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis.

Table 4Rank	Author	H-index	Publications	Citations	Average citations	
1	Papaspyridakos P	19	31	1213	39.13	
2	Yilmaz B	9	25	307	12.28	
3	Revilla-leon M	9	21	225	10.71	
4	Pozzi A	10	14	375	26.79	
5	Chochlidakis K	7	13	220	16.92	
6	Wang HL	8	12	140	11.67	
7	Weber HP	10	11	421	38.27	
8	Gomez-polo M	5	11	115	10.45	
9	Agustin-panadero R	6	11	117	10.64	
10	Finkelman M	7	10	324	32.40	

Fig. 5 The network map of collaboration relations between authors.

Fig. 5

3.6 Highly-cited papers and keywords trends

The information is presented in Table 5 regarding the 10 most frequently co-cited references. Co-cited references denote references that are cited by multiple retrieved articles, suggesting a certain degree of thematic similarity or relevance among the respective articles [42]. The most co-cited reference was “Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study”, produced by Vandeweghe S, published in Clinical Oral Implants Research in 2017 (79 times). Vandeweghe S assessed the accuracy of 4 intraoral scanners for implant scans in the edentulous jaw and found that not all scanners are appropriate for capturing implant scans for a full-arch bridge in the edentulous jaw. Similarly, the remaining 9 references are also concerning about the accuracy analysis of intraoral scanning for edentulous jaw. This search result fully shows that accuracy is a hotspot of high interest in this field.Table 5 The top 10 most co-cited publications associated with digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis from 1994 to 2023.

Table 5Rank	Cited Reference	Author	Year	Journal	IF (2022)	DOI	Co-citations	
1	Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study	Vandeweghe S	2017	Clinical Oral Implants Research	4.3	10.1111/clr.12853	79	
2	Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes	Papaspyridakos P	2016	Clinical Oral Implants Research	4.3	10.1111/clr.12567	75	
3	Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study	Andriessen FS	2014	Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry	4.6	10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.010	70	
4	Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study	Amin S	2017	Clinical Oral Implants Research	4.3	10.1111/clr.12994	65	
5	Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review	Mizumoto RM	2018	Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry	4.6	10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.10.029	56	
6	The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review	Lee H	2008	Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry	4.6	10.1016/s0022-3913(08)60208-5	56	
7	Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study	Imburgia M	2017	Bmc Oral Health	2.9	10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4	56	
8	Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth	Giménez B	2014	International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants	2.0	10.11607/jomi.3343	55	
9	Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth	Giménez B	2015	Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research	3.6	10.1111/cid.12124	52	
10	Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review	Ahlholm P	2018	Journal of prosthodontics	4.0	10.1111/jopr.12527	51	

Keyword analysis also yielded similar results, which can also display research hotspots and directions. The three most common keywords were “accuracy” (228 occurrences), “dental implants” (140 occurrences) and “precision” (103 occurrences). Through further visualizing text analysis results with keyword clouds, we also found that “accuracy” was the core word in this field. The temporal distribution of keywords was further illustrated to highlight changes in research hotspots over time (Fig. 6). The latest keywords included “intraoral scanners”, “trueness”, “scan body”, “photogrammetry”, “strategies” and so on.Fig. 6 The keyword cloud of the publications.

Fig. 6

4 Discussion

4.1 General information

The conventional impression is considered to be the standard care clinically for edentulous arch based on its high accuracy, but complex procedures are needed. Digital scanning based on intraoral scanning and photogrammetry might provide a clinically acceptable alternative to conventional complete-arch implant impression. The increasing number of annual publications indicates that it is a hot topic in prosthetic dentistry.

Digital scans are typically obtained through IOS, which has been widely used for single implant restorations [10,43]. However, challenges arose when it's used for edentulous arches, attributed to the lack of anatomic indexes, reflectivity and inherent mobility of soft tissue, similar shape of the scan bodies, and the long scanning path [22,24,[44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]]. The 2018 ITI Consensus Report stated that it is still not recommended to routinely use intraoral digital implant scans clinically to large interimplant spans or edentulous arches due to insufficient accuracy [10]. The annual number of publications before 2018 (less than 25) also indicates that IOS has not yet been widely adopted in this field at that time.

The annual number of publications has increased rapidly since 2018, which can be attributed to two reasons. On the one hand, many researchers have proposed methods to improve the accuracy of intraoral digital scans for edentulous arches. The common strategy of these methods is to add easily identifiable connections between dispersed scan bodies with characteristic structures or modify the shape of the scan bodies, which has improved the accuracy of intraoral digital scans for edentulous arches and surpassed conventional open-tray splinted impressions in some cases [14,25,47,[57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]]. On the other hand, photogrammetry has garnered particular attention in this field recently, providing a digital alternative to accurately recording the 3D positions of dental implants [[73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]]. Photogrammetry is a technique that uses the device equipped with multiple cameras to capture the target object from multiple angles, thereby acquiring the 3D positions of the target object [81]. It has demonstrated high accuracy in other disciplines such as topographic surveying, automobile manufacturing, and civil engineering previously [82,83]. Subsequently, this technique has been used for acquiring 3D implant positions for partial or completely edentulous arches [34,82,[84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]]. Due to its operational mechanism that eliminates the necessity for overlapping captured images, it may not be influenced by factors such as scanning patterns and ambient illumination conditions, easing the digitizing method [87,91,94,95].

As a commonly used bibliometric indicator, the citation count is a numerical parameter to quantify the impact of a publication. The co-citation count represents the popularity of a reference by researchers in the same field, indicating the quality and impact of the research, offering clinicians an objective basis for making evidence-based decisions. Based on this criterion and other indicators, we believe that Papaspyridakos P is the most contributing author and Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is the scientific journal with the highest impact in this field. However, it should be noted that citation count is a continuously growing parameter that is influenced by publication time, so we may underestimate the quality of some newer articles. For example, Revilla-Leon M has published many articles in this field and has a high H-index, but has received relatively few citations. This may be because his articles are mainly published in 2016–2023, which are relatively new. The top 10 most co-cited references focused on clinical applications of IOS. This may be attributed to the relatively early application of IOS, leading to a greater volume of publications and earlier publication dates. In contrast, publications on the relatively new stereophotogrammetry technique are still limited and have not yet received significant citations.

4.2 Hotspots and frontiers

The keywords analysis is essential for identifying research interests and trends. In this field, “accuracy” is the core word, which is crucial for the long-term success of implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis, as insufficient accuracy may lead to a misfit of the prosthesis, ultimately resulting in potential mechanical and biological complications [[3], [4], [5], [6]]. Other keywords related to accuracy include “precision”, “fit”, “misfit” and “placement”, while those related to prognosis include “bone”, “survival”, and “follow-up”. To assess accuracy, researchers often compare the implant positions acquired from photogrammetry with those from the 3D models acquired by IOS or conventional impression scanned by a laboratory scanner [96]. Relevant 8 in vitro and in vivo studies have been summarized in Table 6 [2,34,95,[97], [98], [99], [100], [101]]. Most of the above results consistently indicated that both the trueness and precision of photogrammetry were superior to those of IOS or conventional impression [34,[97], [98], [99], [100], [101]]. However, Revilla-León came to the opposite conclusion, that photogrammetry is the least accurate of the three techniques [2]. The comparison results of IOS and conventional impression are also inconsistent. The inconsistencies of the above conclusions may arise from differences in scanner types, accuracy evaluation parameters and software prograte the impact of different systems, am or algorithms [34]. Due to the heterogeneity of different experimental designs, further research is still needed to evaluaccuracy evaluation methods, number and angle of implants, connection of accessories and other factors on the accuracy of implant positions acquired by photogrammetry.Table 6 Characteristics of in vitro and in vivo studies comparing conventional, intraoral scanning, and photogrammetry accuracy of complete-arch implant impression.

Table 6Reference	Study type	Groups and systems	Evaluation parameters	Accuracy	Conclusions	
(Revilla-León et al., 2021)	In vitro
(n = 10)	PG: iCam4D; Imetric.
IOS: iTero Element; Cadent.
TRIOS 3; 3Shape A/S.
CI: Splinting AM metal framework, AM custom tray and polyether impression technique.
Reference coordinates: CMM; Contura G2; Zeiss.
CAD software program: Geomagic; 3D Systems.	Linear deviations, angular deviations and 3D deviations between the final cast and scanned models.	Linear deviations (x-axis, y-axis, z-axis): (p = 0.004)
PG (23.8 μm, 73.7 μm, −4.7 μm)
CI (7.3 μm, 8.9 μm, 1.8 μm)
IOS-iTero Element (4.1 μm, 17.5 μm, −4.1 μm)
IOS-TRIOS 3 (9.7 μm, 18.0 μm, −4.9 μm)
Angular deviations (XZ angle, YZ angle): (p < 0.001)
PG (0.1°, 0.3°)
CI (0.1°, −0.1°)
IOS-iTero Element (−0.1°, −0.1°)
IOS-TRIOS 3 (0.2°, 0.2°)
3D deviations: PG: 77.6 μm; CI: 11.7 μm; IOS-iTero Element: 18.4 μm; IOS-TRIOS 3: 21.1 μm.	PG showed the worst accuracy outcome with the highest 3D discrepancy for the implant abutment positions of all the groups. The CI group obtained the best accuracy outcome among all the groups.	
(Ma et al., 2021)	In vitro
(n = 10)	PG: iCam4D; Imetric.
IOS: TRIOS3; 3Shape A/S.
CI: Splinted open-tray impression digitized by E4; 3Shape A/S.
CAD software program: Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems.	3D deviations of implant replica positions.	3D deviations (Trueness, Precision): (p < 0.001)
PG (24.45 μm, 2.00 μm)
CI (28.70 μm, 29.40 μm)
IOS (43.45 μm, 36.00 μm)	For complete-arch implant rehabilitation, PG showed the highest accuracy of all the groups, followed by CI, and IOS provided the least accuracy.	
(Zhang et al., 2021)	In vivo
(n = 14)	PG: iCam4D; Imetric.
CI: Splinted open-tray impression. (Digitized by laboratory scanner (LS3; Nobel Biocare))
CAD software program: Geomagic
Studio 2014; 3D System.	Distance deviation and angular deviation between PG and CI models.	PG Trueness:
Linear deviations (mean ± SD): 70 ± 57 μm.
Angular deviations (mean ± SD): 0.432 ± 0.348°.	PG deviation trueness within the clinically acceptable error range of 150 μm.	
(Sallorenzo et al., 2022)	In vitro
(n = 10)	PG: PIC system; PICdental.
IOS: TRIOS3; 3Shape A/S.
Reference coordinates: CMM.
CAD software program: (Geomagic; 3D Systems).	Linear deviations and angular deviations of parallel or angled implant positions.	Linear deviations (Trueness, Precision)
Parallel implant cast:
PG (20 μm, 32 μm)
IOS (100 μm, 292 μm)
Angled implant cast:
PG (10 μm, 65 μm)
IOS (23 μm, 205 μm)
Angular deviations (Trueness, Precision)
Parallel implant cast:
PG (0.354°, 0.280°)
IOS (1.177°, 0.474°)
Angled implant cast:
PG (0.084°, 0.246°)
IOS (0.529°, 0.841°)	PG showed higher precision and trueness than IOS for scanning complete-arch implant-supported prostheses.	
(Kosago et al., 2022)	In vitro
(n = 5)	PG:PIC System; PIC Dental.
IOS-1: TRIOS 4; 3Shape.
IOS-2: iTero Element 2; Align Technology.
IOS-3: Primescan; Dentsply-Sirona.
CI: Open-tray splint impression with single-mixed single impression digitized by E4; 3Shape A/S.
CAD software program: Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems.	3D deviations of scan body positions.	3D deviations (Trueness, Precision): (P < 0.05)
PG (48.74 μm, 5.46 μm)
IOS-1 (52.14 μm, 19.39 μm)
IOS-2 (67.72 μm, 36.84 μm)
IOS-3 (57.24 μm, 28.85 μm)
CI (141.86 μm, 49.40 μm).	For completed-arch digital implant impressions, PG presents higher accuracy than other techniques, especially in terms of precision. CI showed the lowest trueness and precision.	
(Orejas et al., 2022)	In vivo
(n = 5)	PG: PIC System; PIC Dental.
IOS-1: TRIOS 3; 3Shape A/S.
IOS-2: True Definition; 3M ESPE.
CAD software program: Geomagic; 3D Systems.	Linear deviations and angular deviations of implant positions.	Precision (Maxilla/Mandible):
Linear:
PG (108.2/104.4) μm, IOS-1 (220.6/476.4) μm, IOS-2 (342.9/269.0) μm.
Angular:
PG (0.44/0.24) degrees, IOS-1 (1.26/2.57) degrees, IOS-2 (1.01/1.61) degrees.	PG system had better precision than the IOS systems.	
(Revilla-León et al., 2023)	In vitro (n = 10)	PG: PIC System; PIC Dental.
CI: Splinting AM metal framework, AM custom tray and elastomeric impression technique.
Reference coordinates: CMM; Contura G2; Zeiss.
CAD software program: Calypso; Carl Zeiss.	Linear deviations (x-, y-, and z-axes), angular deviations (XZ and YZ angle) and 3D deviations between positions of implant abutments with reference cast.	Linear deviations (x-axis, y-axis, z-axis): (p < 0.001)
PG (13.36 μm, 11.47 μm, 8.05 μm)
CI (11.18 μm, 11.86 μm, 2.82 μm)
Angular deviations (XZ angle, YZ angle): (p < 0.001)
PG (0.03°, 0.08°)
CI (0.22°, 0.26°)
3D deviations: PG: 20.15 μm; CI: 18.40 μm.	CI showed higher accuracy than PG.	
(Tohme et al.,
2023)	In vitro (n = 15)	PG: PIC System; PIC Dental.IOS: TRIOS3; 3Shape A/S.CI: Abutment-level impression digitized by E3; 3Shape A/S.
CAD: Geomagic Control X; 3D System.	Angular deviation of whole scan bodies.
Whole scan bodies and flat angled surface' 3D deviations.	Angular deviation (Trueness, Precision): (P < 0.001)
PG (0.809°, 0.010°)
CI (0.922°, 1.142°)
IOS (1.081°, 0.221°)
3D deviation (Trueness, Precision): (P < 0.001) whole scan bodies:
PG (88 μm, 2 μm)
CI (115 μm, 103 μm)
IOS (148 μm, 63 μm) flat angled surface:
PG (213 μm, 2 μm)
CI (166, 166 μm)
IOS (112 μm, 67 μm)	
For whole scan bodies 3D deviation and angular deviation, PG showed highest trueness and precision. But for the flat angled surface, IOS showed higher trueness.	
PG: Photogrammetry; CI: Conventional impression; IOS: Intraoral scanning; CMM: Coordinate measuring machine; CAD, computer-aided design; IQR, interquartile range.

In addition, high equipment costs and the level of technological development may be limiting factors for the widespread application of digital scanning, which explains why high-income countries have larger volumes of publications with higher average citation counts. This is due to the fact that after acquiring digital scans, further processes such as data preprocessing, multi-source data integration, digital design, and final prosthesis manufacturing are required. This process involves a variety of expensive digital equipment, advanced software programs, and well-trained operators, where developed countries have an advantage [48]. The analysis outcomes indicate that digital scanning technology is more popular in developed countries, with the United States in a leading position. Judging from the international cooperation network, the United States is also the country that cooperates most frequently with other countries, which is very helpful for data exchange and the development of relevant techniques. Therefore, we should be aware that the development of economy and the upgrading of digital equipment will accelerate the transformation of conventional impressions to digital scans for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis, leading to changes in related research topics.

4.3 Limitations of this study

This study is the initial extensive bibliometric analysis of the digital scanning technique for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis. However, there are notable limitations to acknowledge. Firstly, the search confined to the WoSCC database and the restriction to English-language publications may have omitted some studies. The exclusive reliance on published sources potentially leads to publication bias. Secondly, the public database was not specifically designed for bibliometric analysis, thus the errors it may contain will affect the analysis performed on downloaded data [102]. Thirdly, while bibliometric analysis is inherently quantitative, qualitative statements from bibliometrics still exhibit considerable subjectivity [102]. Additionally, bibliometric analysis can only assess the short-term development trends of a research field, but it cannot provide a long-term prediction.

5 Conclusions

Digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis is a hot topic in prosthetic dentistry. The United States plays a leading role in this field, which is closely related to its high economic level, technological level and close international cooperation. Papaspyridakos P is the most contributing author and Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is the scientific journal with the highest impact in this field. Accuracy was the core word in this field, and it is likely to continue to be a research hotspot in the future. More scientific evidence is still needed to support the clinical application of digital scanning in this field. Moreover, collaboration and communication between scientists, countries, and organizations must improve to promote progress in these research areas and identify new hotspots for exploration.

Ethics approval statement

Not applicable. Wuhan University does not require approval for bibliometric studies.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, and further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Funding

This research was supported by Wuhan University Graduate Tutor Education Method Innovation Project.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Yutong Gao: Writing – original draft, Validation, Software, Project administration, Data curation, Conceptualization. Mingyu Zhao: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Formal analysis. Shici Xia: Supervision, Methodology, Investigation, Conceptualization. Yue Sa: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Conceptualization.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Abbreviations

IOS Intraoral scanning

WoSCC Web of Science Core Collection

SCI-E Citation Index Expanded

JCR Journal citation reports

Appendix A Supplementary data

The following are the Supplementary data to this article:Multimedia component 1

Multimedia component 1

figs1 figs1

figs2 figs2

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank 10.13039/501100007046 Wuhan University for its constant support in the training of researchers.

Appendix A Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36782.
==== Refs
References

1 Muhlemann S. Is the use of digital technologies for the fabrication of implant-supported reconstructions more efficient and/or more effective than conventional techniques: a systematic review Clin. Oral Implants Res. 29 Suppl 18 2018 184 195
2 Revilla-Leon M. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine J. Prosthet. Dent 125 3 2021 470 478 32386912
3 Joda T. Bragger U. Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial Clin. Oral Implants Res. 27 12 2016 e185 e189 25864771
4 Mangano F. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature BMC Oral Health 17 1 2017 149 29233132
5 Joda T. Wittneben J.G. Bragger U. Digital implant impressions with the "Individualized Scanbody Technique" for emergence profile support Clin. Oral Implants Res. 25 3 2014 395 397 23289874
6 Stimmelmayr M. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit--an in vitro study Clin Oral Investig 16 3 2012 851 856
7 Bilgin M.S. A review of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacture techniques for removable denture fabrication Eur J Dent 10 2 2016 286 291 27095912
8 Saponaro P.C. Clinical performance of CAD-CAM-fabricated complete dentures: a cross-sectional study J. Prosthet. Dent 116 3 2016 431 435 27160780
9 Tapie L. Understanding dental CAD/CAM for restorations--the digital workflow from a mechanical engineering viewpoint Int. J. Comput. Dent. 18 1 2015 21 44 25911827
10 Barenghi L. Pros and cons of CAD/CAM technology for infection prevention in dental settings during COVID-19 outbreak Sensors 22 1 2021
11 Otto T. Schneider D. Long-term clinical results of chairside Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays: a case series Int. J. Prosthodont. (IJP) 21 1 2008 53 59
12 Miyazaki T. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience Dent. Mater. J. 28 1 2009 44 56 19280967
13 Ahmed K.E. We're going digital: the current state of CAD/CAM dentistry in Prosthodontics Prim. Dent. J. 7 2 2018 30 35
14 Papaspyridakos P. Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 29 4 2014 836 845 25032763
15 Raico Gallardo Y.N. Accuracy comparison of guided surgery for dental implants according to the tissue of support: a systematic review and meta-analysis Clin. Oral Implants Res. 28 5 2017 602 612 27062555
16 Lopes A. The NobelGuide(R) all-on-4(R) treatment concept for rehabilitation of edentulous jaws: a prospective report on medium- and long-term outcomes Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 17 Suppl 2 2015 e406 e416 25195544
17 Papaspyridakos P. Complete digital workflow in prosthesis prototype fabrication for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: a technique J. Prosthet. Dent 122 3 2019 189 192 30948298
18 Vercruyssen M. Depth and lateral deviations in guided implant surgery: an RCT comparing guided surgery with mental navigation or the use of a pilot-drill template Clin. Oral Implants Res. 26 11 2015 1315 1320 25179585
19 Revilla-Leon M. Influence of definitive and interim restorative materials and surface finishing on the scanning accuracy of an intraoral scanner J. Dent. 120 2022 104114
20 Park G.H. Son K. Lee K.B. Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete-arch digital scan J. Prosthet. Dent 121 5 2019 803 810 30598314
21 Rutkunas V. In vitro and in vivo accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions Clin. Oral Implants Res. 32 12 2021 1444 1454 34543478
22 Gimenez B. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 17 Suppl 1 2015 e54 e64 23879869
23 Baig M.R. Accuracy of impressions of multiple implants in the edentulous arch: a systematic review Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 29 4 2014 869 880 25032767
24 Vandeweghe S. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study Clin. Oral Implants Res. 28 6 2017 648 653 27150731
25 Richert R. Intraoral scanner technologies: a review to make a successful impression J Healthc Eng 2017 2017 8427595
26 Joda T. Bragger U. Zitzmann N.U. CAD/CAM implant crowns in a digital workflow: five-year follow-up of a prospective clinical trial Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 21 1 2019 169 174 30362650
27 Jiang X. Immediate loading of multiple splinted implants via complete digital workflow: a pilot clinical study with 1-year follow-up Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 21 3 2019 446 453 31025525
28 Chochlidakis K. Digital versus conventional full-arch implant impressions: a prospective study on 16 edentulous maxillae J. Prosthodont. 29 4 2020 281 286 32166793
29 Carranza M.G. Immediate digital implant scanning workflow for posterior single implant-supported crowns: a case series J. Prosthet. Dent 124 5 2020 503 508 31955836
30 Papaspyridakos P. Digital workflow for implant rehabilitation with double full-arch monolithic zirconia prostheses J. Prosthodont. 29 6 2020 460 465 32185825
31 Delize V. Intrasubject comparison of digital vs. conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns: prosthodontic and patient-centered outcomes Clin. Oral Implants Res. 30 9 2019 892 902 31183902
32 Schepke U. Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: operating time and patient preference J. Prosthet. Dent 114 3 2015 403 406 e1 26047800
33 Joda T. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) of posterior single-implant crowns using digital workflows: a randomized controlled trial with a three-year follow-up Clin. Oral Implants Res. 29 9 2018 954 961 30144159
34 Tohme H. Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: an in vitro study J. Prosthet. Dent 129 2 2023 354 362 34112521
35 Huang J. Clinical applications and outcomes of the surgical tooth extrusion technique: a bibliometric analysis from 1982 to 2023 J. Prosthet. Dent. 2023 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.09.016 S0022-3913(23)00630-3
36 Guerrero-Girones J. Scientific production on silicate-based endodontic materials: evolution and current state: a bibliometric analysis Clin Oral Investig 26 9 2022 5611 5624
37 Ahmad P. A bibliometric analysis of Periodontology 2000 Periodontol 82 1 2000 286 297 2020
38 Nagendrababu V. A bibliometric analysis of the top 100 most-cited case reports and case series in Endodontic journals Int. Endod. J. 55 3 2022 185 218 34817068
39 Yu X. A bibliometric mapping study of the literature on oral health-related quality of life J Evid Based Dent Pract 23 1S 2023 101780
40 van Eck N.J. Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping Scientometrics 84 2 2010 523 538 20585380
41 Aria M. Cuccurullo C. bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis Journal of Informetrics 11 4 2017 959 975
42 Small H. Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 24 4 1973 265 269
43 Wismeijer D. Group 5 ITI Consensus report: digital technologies Clin. Oral Implants Res. 29 Suppl 16 2018 436 442 30328201
44 Patzelt S.B. Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws J Am Dent Assoc 144 8 2013 914 920 23904578
45 Andriessen F.S. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study J. Prosthet. Dent 111 3 2014 186 194 24210732
46 Fluegge T. A novel method to evaluate precision of optical implant impressions with commercial scan bodies-an experimental approach J. Prosthodont. 26 1 2017 34 41 26466158
47 Huang R. Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: an in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation Clin. Oral Implants Res. 31 7 2020 625 633 32181919
48 Knechtle N. Accuracy of digital complete-arch, multi-implant scans made in the edentulous jaw with gingival movement simulation: an in vitro study J. Prosthet. Dent 128 3 2022 468 478 33612335
49 Ribeiro P. Accuracy of implant casts generated with conventional and digital impressions-an in vitro study Int J Environ Res Public Health 15 8 2018
50 Gimenez B. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 29 4 2014 853 862 25032765
51 Di Fiore A. Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners J Prosthodont Res 63 4 2019 396 403 31072730
52 Latham J. Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners J. Prosthet. Dent 123 1 2020 85 95 30982616
53 Arcuri L. Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: a randomized in vitro trial J Prosthodont Res 64 2 2020 128 136 31255546
54 Revilla-Leon M. Intraoral digital scans: Part 2-influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the mesh quality of different intraoral scanners J. Prosthet. Dent 124 5 2020 575 580 31870612
55 Revilla-Leon M. Intraoral digital scans-Part 1: influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners J. Prosthet. Dent 124 3 2020 372 378 31864638
56 Tan M.Y. Comparison of three-dimensional accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions: effect of interimplant distance in an edentulous arch Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 34 2 2019 366 380 30521661
57 Mizumoto R.M. Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses J. Prosthet. Dent 123 1 2020 96 104 31040026
58 Kim J.E. Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions using an artificial landmark J. Prosthet. Dent 117 6 2017 755 761 27863856
59 Negreiros W.M. Digital verification and correction of digital intraoral scans for fixed implant rehabilitation of edentulous arches: a dental technique J. Prosthet. Dent 129 3 2023 395 399 34229898
60 Iturrate M. Eguiraun H. Solaberrieta E. Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis, using an auxiliary geometry part-An in vitro study Clin. Oral Implants Res. 30 12 2019 1250 1258 31610069
61 Iturrate M. Obtaining reliable intraoral digital scans for an implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis: a dental technique J. Prosthet. Dent 121 2 2019 237 241 30093123
62 Gomez-Polo M. Guided implant scanning: a procedure for improving the accuracy of implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses J. Prosthet. Dent 124 2 2020 135 139 31761274
63 Tallarico M. Feasibility of using a prosthetic-based impression template to improve the trueness and precision of a complete arch digital impression on four and six implants: an in vitro study Materials 13 16 2020
64 Venezia P. Full digital workflow for the treatment of an edentulous patient with guided surgery, immediate loading and 3D-printed hybrid prosthesis: the bari technique 2.0. A case report Int J Environ Res Public Health 16 24 2019
65 Ferreira de Almeida D.C. A completely digital approach to replicating functional and esthetic parameters in mandibular implant-supported complete-arch prostheses J. Prosthet. Dent 126 5 2021 622 625 33069362
66 Beretta M. Cast-free digital workflow for implant-supported rehabilitation in a completely edentulous patient: a clinical report J. Prosthet. Dent 125 2 2021 197 203 32087844
67 Carneiro Pereira A.L. Trueness of a device for intraoral scanning to capture the angle and distance between implants in edentulous mandibular arches J. Prosthet. Dent 128 6 2022 1310 1317 33865563
68 Farhan F.A. Sahib A.J. Fatalla A.A. Comparison of the accuracy of intraoral digital impression system and conventional impression techniques for multiple implants in the full-arch edentulous mandible J Clin Exp Dent 13 5 2021 e487 e492 33981396
69 Ahlholm P. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed Prosthodontics: a review J. Prosthodont. 27 1 2018 35 41 27483210
70 Zimmermann M. Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview Int. J. Comput. Dent. 18 2 2015 101 129 26110925
71 Gjelvold B. Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial J. Prosthodont. 25 4 2016 282 287 26618259
72 Goracci C. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence Eur. J. Orthod. 38 4 2016 422 428 26487391
73 Suganna M. Contemporary evidence of CAD-CAM in dentistry: a systematic review Cureus 14 11 2022 e31687
74 Duret F. Preston J.D. CAD/CAM imaging in dentistry Curr. Opin. Dent. 1 2 1991 150 154 1777659
75 Mormann W.H. The evolution of the CEREC system J Am Dent Assoc 137 Suppl 2006 7S 13S
76 Goodacre C.J. CAD/CAM fabricated complete dentures: concepts and clinical methods of obtaining required morphological data J. Prosthet. Dent 107 1 2012 34 46 22230914
77 Srinivasan M. CAD/CAM milled removable complete dentures: an in vitro evaluation of trueness Clin Oral Investig 21 6 2017 2007 2019
78 Davidowitz G. Kotick P.G. The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry Dent Clin North Am 55 3 2011 559-70, ix
79 Rekow D. Computer-aided design and manufacturing in dentistry: a review of the state of the art J. Prosthet. Dent 58 4 1987 512 516 3312586
80 McLaren E. CAD/CAM Dental technology Compend Contin Educ Dent 32 4 2011 73 76 78-76, 82 21661662
81 Bergin J.M. An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques J. Prosthet. Dent 110 4 2013 243 251 24079558
82 Sanchez-Monescillo A. All-on-four rehabilitation using photogrammetric impression technique Quintessence Int. 50 4 2019 288 293 30887962
83 Kau C.H. New method for analysis of facial growth in a pediatric reconstructed mandible Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 139 4 2011 e285 e290 21457833
84 Papaspyridakos P. Accuracy of implant casts generated with splinted and non-splinted impression techniques for edentulous patients: an optical scanning study Clin. Oral Implants Res. 23 6 2012 676 681 21631595
85 Lie A. Jemt T. Photogrammetric measurements of implant positions. Description of a technique to determine the fit between implants and superstructures Clin. Oral Implants Res. 5 1 1994 30 36 8038342
86 Jemt T. Back T. Petersson A. Photogrammetry--an alternative to conventional impressions in implant dentistry? A clinical pilot study Int. J. Prosthodont. (IJP) 12 4 1999 363 368
87 Gomez-Polo M. Stereophotogrammetric impression making for polyoxymethylene, milled immediate partial fixed dental prostheses J. Prosthet. Dent 119 4 2018 506 510 28709673
88 Penarrocha-Oltra D. Impression of multiple implants using photogrammetry: description of technique and case presentation Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal 19 4 2014 e366 e371 24608216
89 Penarrocha-Oltra D. Maxillary full-arch immediately loaded implant-supported fixed prosthesis designed and produced by photogrammetry and digital printing: a clinical report J. Prosthodont. 26 1 2017 75 81 26662261
90 Molinero-Mourelle P. Photogrammetric and intraoral digital impression technique for the rehabilitation of multiple unfavorably positioned dental implants: a clinical report J. Oral Implantol. 45 5 2019 398 402 31429638
91 Agustin-Panadero R. Stereophotogrammetry for recording the position of multiple implants: technical description Int. J. Prosthodont. (IJP) 28 6 2015 631 636
92 Pradies G. Using stereophotogrammetric technology for obtaining intraoral digital impressions of implants J Am Dent Assoc 145 4 2014 338 344 24686966
93 Sanchez-Monescillo A. Photogrammetry impression technique: a case history report Int. J. Prosthodont. (IJP) 29 1 2016 71 73
94 Gomez-Polo M. Accuracy, scanning time, and patient satisfaction of stereophotogrammetry systems for acquiring 3D dental implant positions: a systematic review J. Prosthodont. 32 S2 2023 208 224 37591510
95 Revilla-Leon M. Trueness and precision of complete-arch photogrammetry implant scanning assessed with a coordinate-measuring machine J. Prosthet. Dent 129 1 2023 160 165 34154820
96 Schmidt A. A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key-based method Clin. Oral Implants Res. 32 4 2021 460 469 33469983
97 Ma B. Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study BMC Oral Health 21 1 2021 636 34893053
98 Sallorenzo A. Gomez-Polo M. Comparative study of the accuracy of an implant intraoral scanner and that of a conventional intraoral scanner for complete-arch fixed dental prostheses J. Prosthet. Dent 128 5 2022 1009 1016 33836855
99 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 J. Prosthodont. 32 7 2023 616 624 36083233
100 Orejas-Perez J. In vivo complete-arch implant digital impressions: comparison of the precision of three optical impression systems Int J Environ Res Public Health 19 7 2022
101 Zhang Y.J. Accuracy of photogrammetric imaging versus conventional impressions for complete arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative clinical study J. Prosthet. Dent 130 2 2023 212 218 34776266
102 Donthu N. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines J. Bus. Res. 133 2021 285 296
