Intraoral Scanning Versus Conventional Impression for Implant Prostheses: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.1 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry Pub Date : 2025-04-08 DOI:10.1922/EJPRD_2811Ribeiro13

C S C Ribeiro, M T O Brandão, G C Moreira, S B Bitencourt, R F de Carvalho, C A A Lemos

{"title":"Intraoral Scanning Versus Conventional Impression for Implant Prostheses: A Systematic Review.","authors":"C S C Ribeiro, M T O Brandão, G C Moreira, S B Bitencourt, R F de Carvalho, C A A Lemos","doi":"10.1922/EJPRD_2811Ribeiro13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To analyze and compare conventional and digital impressions, the effectiveness in implant-supported fixed prosthesis cases regarding accuracy, time, and patient preference.Methods: This review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. Two independent reviewers searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and gray literature (ProQuest) for studies published until September 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. Meta-analysis was performed using Rev- Man 5.4 software. A total of 27 studies were selected, including 737 patients.Results: Qualitative analysis showed similar prosthetic results and precision for both procedures. Adjustment and impression durations were shorter with digital impressions. Twelve studies that evaluated patients' perceptions were unanimous about their preference for digital impressions. The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in scanning time in single crowns (P =.001; MD: -7.16; CI: -10.21 to -4.10; heterogeneity P ⟨.001; l² =98%). Additionally, significant differences were observed in the analyses of adjustment duration (P =.04; MD: -3.33; CI: -6.52 to -0.13; heterogeneity P ⟨ .001; l² =90%) and patient preference (P =.003; MD: 19.02; CI: 6.36 to 31.68; heterogeneity P ⟨.001; l² =95%) favoring the digital impression.Conclusion: Intraoral scanning provides better results concerning patient perception, impression time, and duration of adjustments.","PeriodicalId":45686,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2811Ribeiro13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To analyze and compare conventional and digital impressions, the effectiveness in implant-supported fixed prosthesis cases regarding accuracy, time, and patient preference.

Methods: This review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. Two independent reviewers searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and gray literature (ProQuest) for studies published until September 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. Meta-analysis was performed using Rev- Man 5.4 software. A total of 27 studies were selected, including 737 patients.

Results: Qualitative analysis showed similar prosthetic results and precision for both procedures. Adjustment and impression durations were shorter with digital impressions. Twelve studies that evaluated patients' perceptions were unanimous about their preference for digital impressions. The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in scanning time in single crowns (P =.001; MD: -7.16; CI: -10.21 to -4.10; heterogeneity P ⟨.001; l² =98%). Additionally, significant differences were observed in the analyses of adjustment duration (P =.04; MD: -3.33; CI: -6.52 to -0.13; heterogeneity P ⟨ .001; l² =90%) and patient preference (P =.003; MD: 19.02; CI: 6.36 to 31.68; heterogeneity P ⟨.001; l² =95%) favoring the digital impression.

Conclusion: Intraoral scanning provides better results concerning patient perception, impression time, and duration of adjustments.

查看原文本刊更多论文

口腔内扫描与传统印模对种植体的影响：系统回顾。

目的：分析和比较传统印模和数字印模在种植体固定假体病例中的准确性、时间和患者偏好。方法：本综述遵循PRISMA指南，并在PROSPERO注册。两名独立审稿人检索了PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus、Embase、Web of Science和灰色文献（ProQuest），查找2023年9月之前发表的研究。使用rob2.0和ROBINS-I工具评估偏倚风险。meta分析采用Rev- Man 5.4软件。总共选择了27项研究，包括737名患者。结果：定性分析显示两种方法的假体效果和精度相似。数字印模的调整和印模持续时间更短。12项评估患者感知的研究一致表明他们对数字印象的偏好。meta分析显示，单冠扫描时间差异有统计学意义(P = 0.001；MD: -7.16;CI: -10.21 ~ -4.10；P⟨.001；l²= 98%)。此外，在调整持续时间的分析中观察到显著差异(P = 0.04；MD: -3.33;CI: -6.52 ~ -0.13；P⟨.001；l²=90%)和患者偏好(P = 0.003；MD: 19.02;CI: 6.36 - 31.68；P⟨.001；L²=95%)倾向于数字印象。结论：口腔内扫描在患者感知、印模时间和调整时间方面提供了更好的结果。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

2.30

自引率

7.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： The European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry is published quarterly and includes clinical and research articles in subjects such as prosthodontics, operative dentistry, implantology, endodontics, periodontics and dental materials.