Dijital Ölçü Teknolojileri İçinde Fotogrametrinin Yeri ve Önemi
Özet
Dijital diş hekimliğinde son yıllarda yaşanan teknolojik gelişmeler, ölçü alma süreçlerinde daha hassas, hızlı ve hasta dostu yöntemlerin geliştirilmesine olanak sağlamıştır. Bu bağlamda fotogrametri, özellikle implant destekli restorasyonlarda yüksek doğruluk gerektiren klinik uygulamalar için öne çıkan yenilikçi bir ölçüm teknolojisi olarak dikkat çekmektedir. Diş hekimliğinde özellikle implant pozisyonlarının kaydedilmesi, restorasyon uyumunun değerlendirilmesi ve dijital iş akışlarının geliştirilmesi açısından önemli avantajlar sunmaktadır. Geleneksel ölçü yöntemlerine kıyasla daha hızlı olması, hasta konforunu artırması ve klinik süreçleri optimize etmesi, bu tekniğin klinik kullanımını giderek yaygınlaştırmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, yumuşak dokuların doğrudan kaydedilememesi ve bazı klinik senaryolarda ek ölçü gereksinimi gibi sınırlılıkları da bulunmaktadır. Stereofotogrametri sistemleri ve güncel dijital cihazlar, implant destekli rehabilitasyonlarda yüksek hassasiyetli veri elde edilmesini mümkün kılmakta ve CAD/CAM tabanlı üretim süreçleriyle entegre çalışarak dijital iş akışlarının etkinliğini artırmaktadır. Bu bölümde, fotogrametrinin çalışma prensibi, tarihsel gelişimi, diş hekimliğindeki kullanım alanları, avantaj ve dezavantajları ile güncel klinik uygulamaları kapsamlı şekilde ele alınmıştır. Ayrıca mevcut literatür ışığında, bu teknolojinin klinik doğruluğu ve gelecekteki kullanım potansiyeli de değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuç olarak fotogrametri, uygun endikasyonlarda kullanıldığında, modern dijital diş hekimliğinde güçlü, güvenilir ve gelecek vadeden bir ölçü alternatifi olarak değerlendirilmektedir.
Recent technological advancements in digital dentistry have enabled the development of more precise, faster, and patient-friendly impression techniques. In this context, photogrammetry has emerged as an innovative measurement technology, particularly in clinical applications requiring high accuracy in implant-supported restorations. It offers significant advantages in dentistry, especially for recording implant positions, evaluating prosthetic fit, and improving digital workflows. Compared to conventional impression techniques, its faster application, enhanced patient comfort, and optimization of clinical procedures have contributed to its increasing clinical adoption. However, it also has certain limitations, such as the inability to directly capture soft tissues and the need for additional impressions in specific clinical scenarios. Stereophotogrammetry systems and modern digital devices enable highly precise data acquisition in implant-supported rehabilitations and enhance the efficiency of digital workflows through integration with CAD/CAM-based manufacturing processes. This chapter comprehensively discusses the working principles, historical development, applications in dentistry, advantages and disadvantages, and current clinical uses of photogrammetry. In addition, its clinical accuracy and future potential are evaluated considering current literature. In conclusion, when used with appropriate indications, photogrammetry can be considered a powerful, reliable, and promising alternative impression method in modern digital dentistry.
Referanslar
Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Agustín-Panadero R, Bagán L, Giménez B, Peñarrocha M. Impression of multiple implants using photogrammetry: description of technique and case presentation. Medicina Oral, Patología Oral y Cirugía Bucal. 2014;19(4):e366.
Peñarrocha‐Oltra D, Agustín‐Panadero R, Pradíes G, Gomar‐Vercher S, Peñarrocha‐Diago M. Maxillary full‐arch immediately loaded implant‐supported fixed prosthesis designed and produced by photogrammetry and digital printing: a clinical report. Journal of Prosthodontics on Complex Restorations. 2016:241-9.
Stuani VT, Ferreira R, Manfredi GG, Cardoso MV, Sant'Ana AC. Photogrammetry as an alternative for acquiring digital dental models: A proof of concept. Medical hypotheses. 2019;128:43-9.
Azevedo L, Molinero-Mourelle P, Antonaya-Martín JL, del Río-Highsmith J, Correia A, Gómez-Polo M, editors. Photogrammetry technique for the 3D digital impression of multiple dental implants. ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Vision and Medical Image Processing; 2019: Springer.
Jemt T, Lie A. Accuracy of implant‐supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw. Analysis of precision of fit between cast gold‐alloy frameworks and master casts by means of a three‐dimensional photogrammetric technique. Clinical oral implants research. 1995;6(3):172-80.
Benic GI, Elmasry M, Hämmerle CH. Novel digital imaging techniques to assess the outcome in oral rehabilitation with dental implants: a narrative review. Clinical oral implants research. 2015;26:86-96.
Alsharbaty MHM, Alikhasi M, Zarrati S, Shamshiri AR. A clinical comparative study of 3‐dimensional accuracy between digital and conventional implant impression techniques. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2019;28(4):e902-e8.
Saponaro G, Doneddu P, Gasparini G, Staderini E, Boniello R, Todaro M, et al. Custom made onlay implants in peek in maxillofacial surgery: a volumetric study. Child's Nervous System. 2020;36(2):385-91.
Ma B, Yue X, Sun Y, Peng L, Geng W. Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):636.
Pradíes G, Ferreiroa A, Özcan M, Giménez B, Martínez-Rus F. Using stereophotogrammetric technology for obtaining intraoral digital impressions of implants. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2014;145(4):338-44.
Urbanowski K. On the weak point of the stronger uncertainty relation. Academia Quantum. 2025;2(1).
Agustín-Panadero R, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Gomar-Vercher S, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Stereophotogrammetry for Recording the Position of Multiple Implants: Technical Description. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2015;28(6).
Gómez-Polo M, Gómez-Polo C, Del Río J, Ortega R. Stereophotogrammetric impression making for polyoxymethylene, milled immediate partial fixed dental prostheses. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2018;119(4):506-10.
Albayrak B, Sukotjo C, Wee AG, Korkmaz İH, Bayındır F. Three‐dimensional accuracy of conventional versus digital complete arch implant impressions. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2021;30(2):163-70.
Bergin JM, Rubenstein JE, Mancl L, Brudvik JS, Raigrodski AJ. An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2013;110(4):243-51.
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. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2019;30(12):1250-8.
Matsuda T, Goto T, Kurahashi K, Kashiwabara T, Ichikawa T. Development of a digital impression procedure using photogrammetry for complete denture fabrication. International Journal of Computerized Dentistry. 2016;19(3):193-202.
18.Vázquez JEG, Valencia CS, Gutiérrez RC, Franco LMLP, Kanan AD. Accuracy of photogrammetric technologies for the scanning of dental models: A systematic review. Revista Estomatología. 2022;30(2).
Revilla-León M, Att W, Özcan M, Rubenstein J. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2021;125(3):470-8.
Flügge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant‐supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Clinical oral implants research. 2018;29:374-92.
Sallorenzo A, Gómez-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. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2022;128(5):1009-16.
Referanslar
Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Agustín-Panadero R, Bagán L, Giménez B, Peñarrocha M. Impression of multiple implants using photogrammetry: description of technique and case presentation. Medicina Oral, Patología Oral y Cirugía Bucal. 2014;19(4):e366.
Peñarrocha‐Oltra D, Agustín‐Panadero R, Pradíes G, Gomar‐Vercher S, Peñarrocha‐Diago M. Maxillary full‐arch immediately loaded implant‐supported fixed prosthesis designed and produced by photogrammetry and digital printing: a clinical report. Journal of Prosthodontics on Complex Restorations. 2016:241-9.
Stuani VT, Ferreira R, Manfredi GG, Cardoso MV, Sant'Ana AC. Photogrammetry as an alternative for acquiring digital dental models: A proof of concept. Medical hypotheses. 2019;128:43-9.
Azevedo L, Molinero-Mourelle P, Antonaya-Martín JL, del Río-Highsmith J, Correia A, Gómez-Polo M, editors. Photogrammetry technique for the 3D digital impression of multiple dental implants. ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Vision and Medical Image Processing; 2019: Springer.
Jemt T, Lie A. Accuracy of implant‐supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw. Analysis of precision of fit between cast gold‐alloy frameworks and master casts by means of a three‐dimensional photogrammetric technique. Clinical oral implants research. 1995;6(3):172-80.
Benic GI, Elmasry M, Hämmerle CH. Novel digital imaging techniques to assess the outcome in oral rehabilitation with dental implants: a narrative review. Clinical oral implants research. 2015;26:86-96.
Alsharbaty MHM, Alikhasi M, Zarrati S, Shamshiri AR. A clinical comparative study of 3‐dimensional accuracy between digital and conventional implant impression techniques. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2019;28(4):e902-e8.
Saponaro G, Doneddu P, Gasparini G, Staderini E, Boniello R, Todaro M, et al. Custom made onlay implants in peek in maxillofacial surgery: a volumetric study. Child's Nervous System. 2020;36(2):385-91.
Ma B, Yue X, Sun Y, Peng L, Geng W. Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):636.
Pradíes G, Ferreiroa A, Özcan M, Giménez B, Martínez-Rus F. Using stereophotogrammetric technology for obtaining intraoral digital impressions of implants. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2014;145(4):338-44.
Urbanowski K. On the weak point of the stronger uncertainty relation. Academia Quantum. 2025;2(1).
Agustín-Panadero R, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Gomar-Vercher S, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Stereophotogrammetry for Recording the Position of Multiple Implants: Technical Description. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2015;28(6).
Gómez-Polo M, Gómez-Polo C, Del Río J, Ortega R. Stereophotogrammetric impression making for polyoxymethylene, milled immediate partial fixed dental prostheses. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2018;119(4):506-10.
Albayrak B, Sukotjo C, Wee AG, Korkmaz İH, Bayındır F. Three‐dimensional accuracy of conventional versus digital complete arch implant impressions. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2021;30(2):163-70.
Bergin JM, Rubenstein JE, Mancl L, Brudvik JS, Raigrodski AJ. An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2013;110(4):243-51.
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. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2019;30(12):1250-8.
Matsuda T, Goto T, Kurahashi K, Kashiwabara T, Ichikawa T. Development of a digital impression procedure using photogrammetry for complete denture fabrication. International Journal of Computerized Dentistry. 2016;19(3):193-202.
18.Vázquez JEG, Valencia CS, Gutiérrez RC, Franco LMLP, Kanan AD. Accuracy of photogrammetric technologies for the scanning of dental models: A systematic review. Revista Estomatología. 2022;30(2).
Revilla-León M, Att W, Özcan M, Rubenstein J. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2021;125(3):470-8.
Flügge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant‐supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Clinical oral implants research. 2018;29:374-92.
Sallorenzo A, Gómez-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. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2022;128(5):1009-16.
