Lithium disilicate, full coverage crowns: what is the effect of using conventional impressions compared to digital impression with respect to the internal fit of the restoration? A systematic review.
James Gartshore, Charlotte Glavin, Guy Jackson, Steve Bonsor
{"title":"Lithium disilicate, full coverage crowns: what is the effect of using conventional impressions compared to digital impression with respect to the internal fit of the restoration? A systematic review.","authors":"James Gartshore, Charlotte Glavin, Guy Jackson, Steve Bonsor","doi":"10.1038/s41432-024-01075-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Digital dentistry provides an alternative to fabrication of crowns. This systematic review focuses on the accuracy of the mean internal space of lithium disilicate crowns when comparing intraoral scanning to conventional impressions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ovid Medline, Cochrane and PUBMED were searched and the review protocol followed the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023379908) and guided by The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Cohen Kappa coefficient confirmed the agreement of data. The revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was utilised to evaluate randomised controlled trials The Methodological Index for non-randomised controlled trials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the six in vivo studies, three concluded that digital techniques improved the internal fit over their conventional counterparts. Two found that there was no significant difference and one indicated that digital technique resulted in an inferior internal fit. Of the eight in vitro studies, two concluded digital techniques to be superior, two found digital techniques to be inferior and four found no significant difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Significant heterogeneity between studies limits the potential any systematic review of the internal fit of dental crowns when comparing conventional and optical impressions. This systematic review indicates digital methodology is comparable to that of conventional impressions.</p>","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01075-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Digital dentistry provides an alternative to fabrication of crowns. This systematic review focuses on the accuracy of the mean internal space of lithium disilicate crowns when comparing intraoral scanning to conventional impressions.
Methods: Ovid Medline, Cochrane and PUBMED were searched and the review protocol followed the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023379908) and guided by The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Cohen Kappa coefficient confirmed the agreement of data. The revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was utilised to evaluate randomised controlled trials The Methodological Index for non-randomised controlled trials.
Results: Of the six in vivo studies, three concluded that digital techniques improved the internal fit over their conventional counterparts. Two found that there was no significant difference and one indicated that digital technique resulted in an inferior internal fit. Of the eight in vitro studies, two concluded digital techniques to be superior, two found digital techniques to be inferior and four found no significant difference.
Conclusion: Significant heterogeneity between studies limits the potential any systematic review of the internal fit of dental crowns when comparing conventional and optical impressions. This systematic review indicates digital methodology is comparable to that of conventional impressions.
期刊介绍:
Evidence-Based Dentistry delivers the best available evidence on the latest developments in oral health. We evaluate the evidence and provide guidance concerning the value of the author''s conclusions. We keep dentistry up to date with new approaches, exploring a wide range of the latest developments through an accessible expert commentary. Original papers and relevant publications are condensed into digestible summaries, drawing attention to the current methods and findings. We are a central resource for the most cutting edge and relevant issues concerning the evidence-based approach in dentistry today. Evidence-Based Dentistry is published by Springer Nature on behalf of the British Dental Association.