RSS-Feed abonnieren
PDF herunterladen
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1758798
Linear Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners for Full-Arch Impressions of Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
This article compares the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) used in the digital impression of full arches to fabricate implant-supported complete prostheses. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered in the Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/CPM9K). Six electronic databases, gray literature databases, and a manual search were performed in April 2022. Studies that evaluated the accuracy of intraoral scan impressions compared with conventional impressions in full-arch impressions were included for complete implant-supported prostheses. In addition, an adapted checklist for reporting in vitro studies was used to assess the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects Hunter– Schmidt model. Nine studies were included in the analysis. IOS impressions present higher accuracy (137.86 μm) than conventional impressions (182.51 μm) (p<0.001). The heterogeneity of the study's methodology was I2¼18.34. However, impression accuracy varies significantly with scan body type, IOS type, scanning strategy, and modification technique. For most IOS systems, the acceptable clinical threshold of linear accuracy of 200 μm can be achieved, except for the True Definition Scanner in one of the studies. Based on the results of the included studies, digital impressions using IOS present similar or better linear accuracy than conventional impression techniques.
Keywords
systematic review - meta-analysis - digital dentistry - implant-supported dentures - intraoral scanners - impression materialsPublikationsverlauf
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
30. Januar 2023
© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
-
References
- 1 Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28 (11) 1360-1367
- 2 Rech-Ortega C, Fernández-Estevan L, Solá-Ruíz MF, Agustín-Panadero R, Labaig-Rueda C. Comparative in vitro study of the accuracy of impression techniques for dental implants: direct technique with an elastomeric impression material versus intraoral scanner. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2019; 24 (01) e89-e95
- 3 Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Gallucci GO, Doukoudakis A, Weber HP, Chronopoulos V. Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 (04) 836-845
- 4 Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzade M. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: effect of implant angulation and connection type. Int J Dent 2018; 2018: 3761750
- 5 Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 2015; 46 (01) 9-17
- 6 Taylor TK, Agar JR, Vogiatzi T. Implant prosthodontics current perspective and future direction. Int J Oral Maxillofac 2010; 15: 66-75
- 7 Cho SH, Schaefer O, Thompson GA, Guentsch A. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 113 (04) 310-315
- 8 Bohner L, Gamba DD, Hanisch M. et al. Accuracy of digital technologies for the scanning of facial, skeletal, and intraoral tissues: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 121 (02) 246-251
- 9 Joda T, Gallucci GO. The virtual patient in dental medicine. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26 (06) 725-726
- 10 Katase H, Kanazawa M, Inokoshi M, Minakuchi S. Face simulation system for complete dentures by applying rapid prototyping. J Prosthet Dent 2013; 109 (06) 353-360
- 11 Schoenbaum TR. Dentistry in the digital age: an update. Dent Today 2012; 31 (02) 108-113 , 110, 112–113
- 12 Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115 (03) 313-320
- 13 Atieh MA, Ritter AV, Ko CC, Duqum I. Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: a clinical study using a reference appliance. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 118 (03) 400-405
- 14 Keul C, Güth JF. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison. Clin Oral Investig 2020; 24 (02) 735-745
- 15 Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27 (04) 465-472
- 16 Karl M, Graef F, Schubinski P, Taylor T. Effect of intraoral scanning on the passivity of fit of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. Quintessence Int 2012; 43 (07) 555-562
- 17 Mehl A, Ender A, Mörmann W, Attin T. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 2009; 12 (01) 11-28
- 18 Flügge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, Nelson K. Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners. Int J Prosthodont 2016; 29 (03) 277-283
- 19 Patzelt SBM, Vonau S, Stampf S, Att W. Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws. J Am Dent Assoc 2013; 144 (08) 914-920
- 20 Albayrak B, Sukotjo C, Wee AG, Korkmaz İH, Bayındır F. Three-dimensional accuracy of conventional versus digital complete arch implant impressions. J Prosthodont 2021; 30 (02) 163-170
- 21
Liberati A,
Altman DG,
Tetzlaff J.
et al.
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies
that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol
2009; 62 (10) e1-e34
MissingFormLabel
- 22 Krithikadatta J, Gopikrishna V, Datta M. CRIS Guidelines (Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies): a concept note on the need for standardized guidelines for improving quality and transparency in reporting in-vitro studies in experimental dental research. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17 (04) 301-304
- 23 Kim KR, Seo KY, Kim S. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 122 (06) 543-549
- 24 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 (03) 1253-1262
- 25 Abdel-Azim T, Zandinejad A, Elathamna E, Lin W, Morton D. The influence of digital fabrication options on the accuracy of dental implant-based single units and complete-arch frameworks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 (06) 1281-1288
- 26 Tan MY, Yee SHX, Wong KM, Tan YH, Tan KBC. Comparison of three-dimensional accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions: effect of interimplant distance in an edentulous arch. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34 (02) 366-380
- 27 Fletcher J. What is heterogeneity and is it important?. BMJ 2007; 334 (7584): 94-96
- 28 Chochlidakis K, Papaspyridakos P, Tsigarida A. et al. Digital versus conventional full-arch implant impressions: a prospective study on 16 edentulous maxillae. J Prosthodont 2020; 29 (04) 281-286
- 29 Park JM. Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form. J Adv Prosthodont 2016; 8 (05) 354-362
- 30 Müller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int 2016; 47 (04) 343-349
- 31 International Organization for Standardization. ISO 5725–2:2019. Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of Measurement Methods and Results d Part 2: Basic Method for the Determination of Repeatability and Reproducibility of a Standard Measurement Method. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2019
- 32 Stefanelli LV, Franchina A, Pranno A. et al. Use of intraoral scanners for full dental arches: could different strategies or overlapping software affect accuracy?. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18 (19) 9946
- 33 Fukazawa S, Odaira C, Kondo H. Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res 2017; 61 (04) 450-459
- 34 Oh KC, Park JM, Moon HS. Effects of scanning strategy and scanner type on the accuracy of intraoral scans: a new approach for assessing the accuracy of scanned data. J Prosthodont 2020; 29 (06) 518-523
- 35 D'haese R, Vrombaut T, Roeykens H, Vandeweghe S. In vitro accuracy of digital and conventional impressions for full-arch implant-supported prostheses. J Clin Med 2022; 11 (03) 594
- 36 Albayrak B, Sukotjo C, Wee AG, Korkmaz İH, Bayındır F. Three-dimensional accuracy of conventional versus digital complete arch implant impressions. J Prosthodont 2021; 30 (02) 163-170