Accuracy of Intraoral Scanner Compare with Conventional Impression Technique on Dental Implant in Complete Edentulous Area: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Keywords:
Accuracy, Intraoral scanner, Conventional impression technique, Dental implant, Complete edentulous areaAbstract
Background: Intraoral scanner (IOS) provides digital impression offer advantages like reduced time, patient comfort, and improved communication but may be less accurate than conventional impression technique for multi-unit of fixed prosthesis, long-distance between dental implants on full-arch restorations or fully edentulous areas. Recent advancements aim to improve IOS accuracy. Objective: To synthesize research on the comparative accuracy of IOS versus conventional impression technique for dental implants in fully edentulous areas. Methods: Systematic search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and manual searches for English or Thai articles (2016-2023) using PICO methodology. Results: 8 meta-analyses were included. Overall, Conventional impression techniques demonstrated significantly better accuracy than IOS (SMD = 0.68; 95%CI: 0.33, 1.03; p < .01) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 88.9%). Subgroup analyses revealed: 1) Short-distance measurements: Conventional impression technique showed better accuracy than IOS but not statistically significant (SMD = 0.22; 95%CI: -0.32, 0.75; p = .273) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 84.1%) 2) Long-distance measurements: Conventional impression technique showed significantly better accuracy than IOS (SMD = 1.46; 95%CI: 0.86, 2.06; p < .01) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 88.2%) 3) 3D measurements: Conventional impression technique showed better accuracy than IOS but not statistically significant accuracy (SMD = 0.35; 95%CI: -0.28, 0.98; p = .273) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 90.4%) Conclusion: While conventional impression technique demonstrated significantly better overall accuracy than IOS for dental implants in fully edentulous areas, the differences were not statistically significant for short- distance and 3D measurements. This suggests Intraoral scanner can be clinically viable despite slightly lower accuracy. However, the high heterogeneity indicates limited evidence, necessitating further high-quality research.
References
Haidar ZS. Digital dentistry: past, present, and future. Digital Medicine and Healthcare Technology 2023;2:1-16.
Poopuangpairoj Y, Chaoklaiwong B, Jia-mahasap W. The role of CaD-CaM Systems in oral rehabilitation: literature review and Case report. CM Dent J 2020;41(1):117-35.
Abigail Coutinho C, Hegde D, Shetty S, Iyer R, Priya A. Intraoral Scanners: A Narrative Review. Journal of Research in Dentistry 2020;8(1):1.
Mangano F, Gandolf A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health 2017;17(1):149.
Papaspyridakos P, Vazouras K, Chen YW, Kotina E, Natto Z, Kang K, et al. Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Prosthodont 2020;29(8):660-78.
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. Int J Implant Dent 2023;9(1):48.
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 2021;12(1):55-61.
Moura RV, Kojima AN, Saraceni CHC, Bassolli L, Balducci I, Ozcan M, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital impression techniques for implant restorations. J Prosthodont 2019;28(2):e530-e5.
Lyu M, Di P, Lin Y, Jiang X. Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2022;128(5):1017-23.
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.
Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafe K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28(11):1360-7.
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.
Chinwongs A, Serichetapongse P. Comparison of the 3D accuracy between digital and conventional impressions in full arch multi-unit implants at implant and abutment levels: An in-vitro Study. J Dent Assoc Thai 2022;72(3):467-77.
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):832.
Marshaha NJ, Azhari AA, Assery MK, Ahmed WM. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of conventional impressions versus digital scans for the all-on-four treatment in the maxillary arch: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2024;33(2):171-9.
Collaboration. TS. SURE Guides for Preparing and Using Evidence-Based Policy Briefs. Version 2.1. 2011 [cited 2024 Jul]. Available from: www.evipnet.org/sure.
Albanchez-Gonzalez MI, Brinkmann JC, Pelaez-Rico J, Lopez-Suarez C, Rodriguez-Alonso V, Suarez-Garcia MJ. Accuracy of digital dental implants impression taking with intraoral scanners compared with conventional impression techniques: a systematic review of in vitro studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19(4):2026.
Posritong S, Chukiatmun K. Accuracy of intraoral scanners compare with conventional impression techniques in vivo study: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J DMS 2020;46(2):121-31.
Abduo J, Elseyouf M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: a systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018;26(3):101-21.
Department of Health, Ministry of Public Health. Denture and Dental implant project commemorate His Majesty the King’s 6th Cycle, 72nd Birthday Anniversary on 28 July 2024. [Internet]. [cited 2025 April]. Available from: https://doc.anamai.moph.go.th/index.php?r=str-project/view&id=6419#.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
บทความที่ได้รับการตีพิมพ์เป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของกรมการแพทย์ กระทรวงสาธารณสุข
ข้อความและข้อคิดเห็นต่างๆ เป็นของผู้เขียนบทความ ไม่ใช่ความเห็นของกองบรรณาธิการหรือของวารสารกรมการแพทย์
