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.