Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners Compare with Conventional Impression Techniques in Vivo Study: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Keywords:
Accuracy, Intraoral scanners, Intraoral digital scanners, Conventional impression techniques, Systematic review, Meta-analysisAbstract
Background: The accuracy of dental model is important in dentistry. Acquiring data from an intraoral scanner has different context from that of an extraoral scanner. Thus, researchers try to compare the accuracy of using an intraoral scanner with the conventional impression techniques which includes scanning short distance and scanning full arch, or long distance. This method can evaluate the accuracy in many aspects.Objective: To quantitatively compare the accuracy of intra oral scanning by the scanner with the accuracy of convention impression techniques as well as to re-evaluate its clinical acceptance value as a guide for all dental clinical works.Methods: Related articles were systematically search via PubMed, open Access, Google scholar and manual searches. Articles published in English from 2010 to 2021 were selected. Eighteen articles were then accepted, and their datasets were meta-analyzed by evaluating and comparing the accuracy of using an intraoral scanner with conventional impression technique. Furthermore, subgroup analysis was divided into short distance and long distance, or large object, scanning.Result: The accuracy of short distance scanning was better than conventional impression technique, but not statistically significant (SMD = -0.255; 95% CI = -0.553, 0.042; p = 0.093) due to moderate heterogeneity of data (I2 = 56.4%). The accuracy of scanning for long distance, also known as large object, was worse than conventional method with statistical significance (SMD = 1.808; 95% CI = 0.304, 3.311; p = 0.018) and very high heterogeneity of data (I2 = 96.8%).Conclusion: Intraoral scanners are reliable enough to use in clinical context for short distance scanning. However, the reliability of scanning for long distance or large objects is still at risk of inaccuracy. The reason for heterogeneity remains obscure as the availability of the evidence is limited and further high-quality research is required.
References
Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review of Influencing Factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018; 26: 101-21.
Aswani K, Wankhade S, Khalikar A, Deogade S. Accuracy of an intraoral digital impression: A review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2020; 20: 27-37.
Nedelcu R. In Vivo Accuracy and Precision in Prosthodontics.Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Medicine 1625. 51 pp. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. ISBN 978-91-513-0840-1.
Michelinakis G, Apostolakis D, Kamposiora P, Papavasiliou G, Özcan M. The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health 2021;21:37.doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01398-2.
Tabesh M, Nejatidanesh F, Savabi G, Davoudi A, Savabi O,Mirmohammadi H. Marginal adaptation of zirconia completecoverage fixed dental restorations made from digital scans or conventional impressions: A systematic review and metaanalysis.J Prosthet Dent 2021;125:603-610.
Giachetti L, Sarti C, Cinelli F, Russo DS. Accuracy of Digital Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies. Int J Prosthodont 2020; 33:192-201.
Naidu D, Freer TJ. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: a comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144: 304-10.
Hasanzade M, Shirani M, Afrashtehfar KI, Naseri P, Alikhasi M. In Vivo and In Vitro Comparison of Internal and Marginal Fit of Digital and Conventional Impressions for Full-Coverage Fixed Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2019; 19: 236-54.
McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis):An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Methods 2020;12: 55-61.
Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Tutein Nolthenius HE, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 143:140-7.
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: 400-5.
Kuhr F, Schmidt A, Rehmann P, Wöstmann B. A new method for assessing the accuracy of full arch impressions in patients.J Dent 2016; 55: 68-74.
Alsharbaty MHM, Alikhasi M, Zarrati S, Shamshiri AR. A Clinical Comparative Study of 3-Dimensional Accuracy between Digital and Conventional Implant Impression Techniques. J Prosthodont. 2019; 28(4): e902-8.
Sim JY, Jang Y, Kim WC, Kim HY, Lee DH, Kim JH. Comparing the accuracy (trueness and precision) of models of fixed dental prostheses fabricated by digital and conventional workflows. J Prosthodont Res 2019; 63: 25-30.
Schmidt A, Klussmann L, Wöstmann B, Schlenz MA. Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients:An Update. J Clin Med 2020; 9: 688. doi: 10.3390/jcm9030688.
Chochlidakis K, Papaspyridakos P, Tsigarida A, Romeo D, Chen YW, Natto Z, et al. Digital Versus Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae. J Prosthodont 2020; 29: 281-6.
Pradíes G, Zarauz C, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Martínez-Rus F. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions based on wavefront sampling technology. J Dent 2015; 43: 201-8.
Ahrberg D, Lauer HC, Ahrberg M, Weigl P. Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded,randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20: 291-300.
Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ,Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 116: 184-90.e12.
Zeltner M, Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Özcan M, Hämmerle CH,Benic GI. Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part III:marginal and internal fit. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117: 354-62.
Zarauz C, Valverde A, Martinez-Rus F, Hassan B, Pradies G. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20: 799-806.
Rödiger M, Heinitz A, Bürgers R, Rinke S. Fitting accuracy of zirconia single crowns produced via digital and conventional impressions-a clinical comparative study. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21: 579-87.
Sakornwimon N, Leevailoj C. Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients’ preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material.J Prosthet Dent 2017; 118: 386-91.
Yun MJ, Jeon YC, Jeong CM, Huh JB. Comparison of the fit of cast gold crowns fabricated from the digital and the conventional impression techniques. J Adv Prosthodont 2017; 9: 1-13.
Haddadi Y, Bahrami G, Isidor F. Accuracy of crowns based on digital intraoral scanning compared to conventional impression-a split-mouth randomised clinical study. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23: 4043-50.
Park JS, Lim YJ, Kim B, Kim MJ, Kwon HB. Clinical Evaluation of Time Efficiency and Fit Accuracy of Lithium Disilicate Single Crowns between Conventional and Digital Impression. Materials (Basel) 2020; 13: 5467. doi: 10.3390/ma13235467.
The SURE Collaboration. SURE Guides for Preparing and Using Evidence-Based Policy Briefs. Version 2.1 [updated November 2011], 2011. Available from www.evipnet.org/sure
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
บทความที่ได้รับการตีพิมพ์เป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของกรมการแพทย์ กระทรวงสาธารณสุข
ข้อความและข้อคิดเห็นต่างๆ เป็นของผู้เขียนบทความ ไม่ใช่ความเห็นของกองบรรณาธิการหรือของวารสารกรมการแพทย์
