EPA Consensus Project Paper: Optical Impression Accuracy of Preparations for Fixed Prosthodontics: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.1 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry Pub Date : 2023-03-08 DOI:10.1922/EJPRD_2512Kilicarslan13

M A Kılıçarslan, E I Oğuz

{"title":"EPA Consensus Project Paper: Optical Impression Accuracy of Preparations for Fixed Prosthodontics: A Systematic Review.","authors":"M A Kılıçarslan, E I Oğuz","doi":"10.1922/EJPRD_2512Kilicarslan13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the accuracy of different optical impressions of tooth preparations.Methods: An electronic search in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Medline Complete, and ScienceDirect was performed to identify articles comparing the accuracy of different optical impressions (OI) published up to the 1st of March 2022. The inclusion criteria enclosed the accuracy of optical impressions acquired for tooth-supported fixed prosthodontics. Exclusion criteria were defined as studies focused on orthodontic impressions and implant-supported restorations. This review was registered to Prospero; CRD42021287758.Results: Eleven included studies had in vitro design and a low risk of bias. Considering scanned objects, 5 studies evaluated the accuracy based on a single preparation, 2 studies evaluated the accuracy of OIs based on fixed partial denture (FPD) restoration, 3 studies included both single preparation and preparations to receive FPD restorations, and 1 article included a fullarch scan. Mean values of the trueness and precision of OI systems varied according to methodological differences.Conclusions: Optical impression has certain advantages. However, stating a particular optical impression system as the most accurate or superior to conventional impression is not feasible because of the heterogeneity of the accuracy results presented in this systematic review.","PeriodicalId":45686,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-08","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_2512Kilicarslan13","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

Introduction: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the accuracy of different optical impressions of tooth preparations.

Methods: An electronic search in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Medline Complete, and ScienceDirect was performed to identify articles comparing the accuracy of different optical impressions (OI) published up to the 1st of March 2022. The inclusion criteria enclosed the accuracy of optical impressions acquired for tooth-supported fixed prosthodontics. Exclusion criteria were defined as studies focused on orthodontic impressions and implant-supported restorations. This review was registered to Prospero; CRD42021287758.

Results: Eleven included studies had in vitro design and a low risk of bias. Considering scanned objects, 5 studies evaluated the accuracy based on a single preparation, 2 studies evaluated the accuracy of OIs based on fixed partial denture (FPD) restoration, 3 studies included both single preparation and preparations to receive FPD restorations, and 1 article included a fullarch scan. Mean values of the trueness and precision of OI systems varied according to methodological differences.

Conclusions: Optical impression has certain advantages. However, stating a particular optical impression system as the most accurate or superior to conventional impression is not feasible because of the heterogeneity of the accuracy results presented in this systematic review.

查看原文本刊更多论文

EPA共识项目文件:固定口腔修复制剂的光学印模准确性:系统综述。

简介:本系统综述旨在评估不同的光学印模的牙齿制备的准确性。方法:在PubMed、Web of Science、Scopus、Medline Complete和ScienceDirect中进行电子检索，找出截至2022年3月1日发表的比较不同光学印象(OI)准确性的文章。纳入标准包括牙支撑固定修复获得的光学印模的准确性。排除标准定义为专注于正畸印模和种植体支持修复体的研究。这篇评论是写给普洛斯彼罗的;CRD42021287758。结果:11项纳入的研究具有体外设计和低偏倚风险。考虑到扫描对象，5篇研究评估了基于单一准备的准确性，2篇研究评估了基于固定局部义齿(FPD)修复的oi的准确性，3篇研究包括了单一准备和接受FPD修复的准备，1篇研究包括了全孔扫描。OI系统的真实度和精度的平均值因方法的不同而不同。结论:光学印模具有一定的优势。然而，陈述一个特定的光学压印系统是最准确的或优于传统压印是不可行的，因为在这个系统综述中提出的精度结果的异质性。

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.