Comparative Analysis of Intraoral Scanners and Traditional Impression Methods in Full-Arch Implantology: A Systematic Review
Article Sidebar
Downloads
Submit your own article
Register as an author to reserve your spot in the next issue of the Medical Research Archives.
Author RegistrationJoin the Society
The European Society of Medicine is more than a professional association. We are a community. Our members work in countries across the globe, yet are united by a common goal: to promote health and health equity, around the world.
Join Europe’s leading medical society and discover the many advantages of membership, including free article publication.
MembershipMain Article Content
Abstract
Background: The comparative effectiveness of intraoral scanners (IOS) and conventional impression (CI) methods in full-arch implantology has been a topic of ongoing debate. This systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive comparison of these methods across different applications and conditions. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, with the search conducted across different online databases and the relevant studies were extracted, following which they underwent bias assessment and their relevance towards this review was examined. Results: Five in-vitro studies, encompassing various types of IOS and CI methods, were systematically reviewed. The review revealed that neither IOS nor CI could be deemed universally superior. Their relative effectiveness varied depending on several factors, including the specific application, the presence or absence of landmarks, and the type of dimensional analysis used. For instance, while digital techniques offered advantages in terms of minimal distortion for tilted implants, conventional methods demonstrated superior trueness in other scenarios. Conclusion: The findings underscored the importance of a context-specific approach in selecting between IOS and CI, thereby guiding clinical practice and informing future research. However, the transferability of the findings to clinical practice may be limited due to the in-vitro study design, the variety of IOS types, the unaccounted influence of operator skill, and the incomplete exploration of the role of landmarks. Future studies should address these limitations to further enhance our understanding of full-arch implantology.
Keywords: Intraoral scanners, Conventional impressions, Full-arch implantology, Systematic review, Digital techniques, Tilted implants, Trueness, Precision, Landmarks, Dimensional analysis.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. Baig MR. Multi-unit implant impression accuracy: A review of the literature. Quintessence Int. 2014;45(1):39-51. doi:10.3290/j.qi.a30769
3. Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, et al. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: A comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(11):1360-1367. doi:10.1111/clr.12994
4. Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100(4):285-291. doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60208-5
5. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118(1):36-42. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.024
6. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: A new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(2):121-128. doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1
7. Cervino G, Fiorillo L, Herford AS, et al. Alginate materials and dental impression technique: A current state of the art and application to dental practice. Mar Drugs. 2018;17(1):18. doi:10.3390/md17010018
8. Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: A systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(4):422-428. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjv077
9. Nulty AB. A comparison of full arch trueness and precision of nine intra-oral digital scanners and four lab digital scanners. Dent J. 2021;9(7):75. doi:10.3390/dj9070075
10. Di Fiore A, Meneghello R, Graiff L, et al. Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res. 2019;63(4):396-403. doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2019.04.002
11. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: Evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14(10):10. doi:10.1186/1472-6831-14-10
12. Katsoulis J, Takeichi T, Sol Gaviria A, et al. Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10(Suppl 1):121-138.
13. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
14. Lo CK-L, Mertz D, Loeb M. Newcastle-Ottawa scale: Comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:45. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-45
15. 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. doi:10.1155/2018/3761750
16. Drancourt N, Auduc C, Mouget A, et al. Accuracy of conventional and digital impressions for full-arch implantsupported prostheses: An in vitro study. J Pers Med. 2023;13(5):832. doi:10.3390/jpm13050832
17. Farhan FA, Sahib AJ, Fatalla AA. 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. 2021;13(5):e487-e492. doi:10.4317/jced.57926
18. Ke Y, Zhang Y, Wang Y, et al. Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated landmarks in the mandible: An in vitro study. J Dent. 2023;135:104561. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104561
19. Rhee YK, Huh YH, Cho LR, Park CJ. Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015;7(6):460-467. doi:10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.460
20. Katsoulis J, Takeichi T, Sol Gaviria A, et al. Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10(Suppl 1):121-138.
21. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Gallucci GO, et al. Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(4):836-845. doi:10.11607/jomi.3625
22. Toia M, Stocchero M, Jinno Y, et al. Effect of misfit at implant-level framework and supporting bone on internal connection implants: Mechanical and finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(2):320-328. doi:10.11607/jomi.6965
23. Heckmann SM, Karl M, Wichmann MG, et al. Cement fixation and screw retention: Parameters of passive fit. An in vitro study of three-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(4):466-473. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01027.x
24. 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(2):192-201. doi:10.11607/ijp.6468
25. Chebib N, Kalberer N, Srinivasan M, et al. Edentulous jaw impression techniques: An in vivo comparison of trueness. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(4):623-630. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.08.016
26. Sawase T, Kuroshima S. The current clinical relevancy of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry. Dent Mater J. 2020;39(1):57-61. doi:10.4012/dmj.2019-285
27. Li H, Lyu P, Wang Y, Sun Y. Influence of object translucency on the scanning accuracy of a powder-free intraoral scanner: A laboratory study. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(1):93-101. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.04.008
28. Revilla-León M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M, et al. Intraoral digital scans-Part 1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(3):372-378. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.003
29. Revilla-León M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M, et al. Intraoral digital scans: Part 2-influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the mesh quality of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(5):575-580. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.004
30. Kurz M, Attin T, Mehl A. Influence of material surface on the scanning error of a powder-free 3D measuring system. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(8):2035-2043. doi:10.1007/s00784-015-1440-5
31. Abduo J. Accuracy of casts produced from conventional and digital workflows: A qualitative and quantitative analyses. J Adv Prosthodont. 2019;11(2):138-146. doi:10.4047/jap.2019.11.2.138
32. Ma J, Zhang B, Song H, et al. 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. doi:10.1186/s40729-023-00517-8