Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions in partially dentate patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 4.8 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Journal of dentistry Pub Date : 2025-06-17 DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105918

Joon Soo Park , Yosef Faraj Amer Alshehri , Estie Kruger , Luke Villata

{"title":"Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions in partially dentate patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Joon Soo Park , Yosef Faraj Amer Alshehri , Estie Kruger , Luke Villata","doi":"10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105918","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To compare the accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques in partially dentate patients undergoing implant-supported prosthodontic treatment. The primary focus was three-dimensional accuracy, including angular and linear deviations, inter-implant distances, and scan-body misfit.</div></div><div><h3>Data</h3><div>Data were extracted from seven clinical studies involving 151 partially dentate patients. Only three studies contributed data to the angular displacement meta-analysis, and four studies to the deviation analysis. The studies included randomised controlled trials and non-randomised clinical investigations comparing intraoral scanner (IOS)-based digital impressions with conventional impressions using polyvinyl siloxane or polyether materials.</div></div><div><h3>Sources</h3><div>A systematic search was conducted in March 2025 across five databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. PRISMA 2020 guidelines conducted the review and were prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251006999) and the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY202530032).</div></div><div><h3>Study selection</h3><div>Eligible studies were those that clinically assessed impression accuracy in partially dentate implant patients using either digital or conventional methods. Studies were included if they reported quantitative measures of impression accuracy. <em>In vitro</em> studies, non-implant restorative comparisons, and fully edentulous patient cohorts were excluded.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Digital impressions demonstrated significantly lower deviation than conventional impressions, indicating superior spatial accuracy in certain clinical settings. However, no significant difference was observed in angular displacement. Considerable heterogeneity (I² = 80–97 %) across studies limits the certainty of pooled outcomes. Digital impressions are a clinically acceptable alternative for short-span implant restorations in partially dentate patients, though caution is warranted in cases involving long-span or angulated implants. Further high-quality clinical trials with standardised protocols are needed to support broader clinical adoption.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical importance</h3><div>Digital impressions are a clinically acceptable alternative to conventional methods in partially dentate patients. Nevertheless, clinicians should exercise caution in long-span restorations or angulated implants until further high-quality studies with standardised protocols and long-term data are available.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15585,"journal":{"name":"Journal of dentistry","volume":"160 ","pages":"Article 105918"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300571225003628","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques in partially dentate patients undergoing implant-supported prosthodontic treatment. The primary focus was three-dimensional accuracy, including angular and linear deviations, inter-implant distances, and scan-body misfit.

Data

Data were extracted from seven clinical studies involving 151 partially dentate patients. Only three studies contributed data to the angular displacement meta-analysis, and four studies to the deviation analysis. The studies included randomised controlled trials and non-randomised clinical investigations comparing intraoral scanner (IOS)-based digital impressions with conventional impressions using polyvinyl siloxane or polyether materials.

Sources

A systematic search was conducted in March 2025 across five databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. PRISMA 2020 guidelines conducted the review and were prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251006999) and the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY202530032).

Study selection

Eligible studies were those that clinically assessed impression accuracy in partially dentate implant patients using either digital or conventional methods. Studies were included if they reported quantitative measures of impression accuracy. In vitro studies, non-implant restorative comparisons, and fully edentulous patient cohorts were excluded.

Conclusions

Digital impressions demonstrated significantly lower deviation than conventional impressions, indicating superior spatial accuracy in certain clinical settings. However, no significant difference was observed in angular displacement. Considerable heterogeneity (I² = 80–97 %) across studies limits the certainty of pooled outcomes. Digital impressions are a clinically acceptable alternative for short-span implant restorations in partially dentate patients, though caution is warranted in cases involving long-span or angulated implants. Further high-quality clinical trials with standardised protocols are needed to support broader clinical adoption.

Clinical importance

Digital impressions are a clinically acceptable alternative to conventional methods in partially dentate patients. Nevertheless, clinicians should exercise caution in long-span restorations or angulated implants until further high-quality studies with standardised protocols and long-term data are available.

查看原文本刊更多论文

数字与传统种植体印模在部分牙齿患者中的准确性：一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

目的：比较数字印模技术和传统印模技术在部分牙齿患者种植义齿治疗中的准确性。主要关注的是三维精度，包括角度和线性偏差、种植体间距离和扫描体不匹配。数据：数据来自7项临床研究，涉及151例部分齿状牙患者。仅有3项研究为角位移meta分析提供了数据，4项研究为偏差分析提供了数据。这些研究包括随机对照试验和非随机临床调查，比较基于口腔内扫描仪（IOS）的数字印模与使用聚氯乙烯硅氧烷或聚醚材料的传统印模。资料来源：我们于2025年3月对5个数据库进行了系统检索：PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science、CINAHL和Cochrane图书馆。PRISMA 2020指南进行了审查，并在PROSPERO （CRD420251006999）和国际注册系统评价和荟萃分析协议平台（INPLASY202530032）进行了前瞻性注册。研究选择：符合条件的研究是那些使用数字或传统方法临床评估部分齿状种植患者印模准确性的研究。如果研究报告了印象准确性的定量测量，则将其包括在内。排除体外研究、非种植体修复比较和全无牙患者队列。结论：数字印模比传统印模表现出明显更低的偏差，表明在某些临床环境中具有更高的空间精度。然而，在角位移方面没有观察到显著差异。研究间相当大的异质性（I² = 80-97%）限制了汇总结果的确定性。数字印模是临床上可接受的一种替代方法，用于部分齿状患者的短牙距种植体修复，尽管在涉及长牙距或成角种植体的情况下需要谨慎。需要采用标准化方案的进一步高质量临床试验来支持更广泛的临床应用。临床重要性：数字印模是临床上可接受的替代传统方法在部分牙齿患者。然而，临床医生在使用大跨度修复体或成角种植体时应保持谨慎，直到有进一步的高质量研究和标准化方案和长期数据可用。

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

Journal of dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

7.30

自引率

11.40%

发文量

349

审稿时长

35 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Dentistry has an open access mirror journal The Journal of Dentistry: X, sharing the same aims and scope, editorial team, submission system and rigorous peer review. The Journal of Dentistry is the leading international dental journal within the field of Restorative Dentistry. Placing an emphasis on publishing novel and high-quality research papers, the Journal aims to influence the practice of dentistry at clinician, research, industry and policy-maker level on an international basis. Topics covered include the management of dental disease, periodontology, endodontology, operative dentistry, fixed and removable prosthodontics, dental biomaterials science, long-term clinical trials including epidemiology and oral health, technology transfer of new scientific instrumentation or procedures, as well as clinically relevant oral biology and translational research. The Journal of Dentistry will publish original scientific research papers including short communications. It is also interested in publishing review articles and leaders in themed areas which will be linked to new scientific research. Conference proceedings are also welcome and expressions of interest should be communicated to the Editor.