口内扫描是否能提高全拱种植体支持修复体的印模准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Zheng-zhen Cai, Xin Li, Xin-Yu Wu, Hong-Chang Lai, Jun-Yu Shi
{"title":"口内扫描是否能提高全拱种植体支持修复体的印模准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Zheng-zhen Cai,&nbsp;Xin Li,&nbsp;Xin-Yu Wu,&nbsp;Hong-Chang Lai,&nbsp;Jun-Yu Shi","doi":"10.1111/cid.13321","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>The present study aimed to systematically review the studies comparing the accuracy of intraoral scan (IOS) and conventional implant impressions (CI) in completely edentulous patients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL up to December 1, 2023. Clinical studies and in vitro studies reporting the accuracy of digital full arch impressions were included. The primary outcome is the 3-dimensional deviations between the study reference models. A risk of bias assessment was performed for clinical studies. A stratified meta-analysis and a single-armed meta-analysis were conducted.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 49 studies were included, with 8 clinical studies and 41 in vitro studies. For comparison between IOS and conventional impressions, studies were categorized into two groups based on the different measurement methods employed: RMS and CMM. In studies using RMS, the result favored the IOS in the unparalleled situation with the mean difference of −99.29 μm (95% CI: [−141.38, −57.19], <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 81%), while the result was opposite with the mean difference of 13.62 μm (95% CI: [10.97, 16.28], <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 26%) when implants were paralleled. For different brands of IOS, the accuracy ranged from 76.11 μm (95% CI: [42.36, 109.86]) to 158.63 μm (95% CI: [−14.68, 331.93]).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Accuracy of intraoral scan is clinically acceptable in edentulous arches, especially for unparalleled implants. More clinical studies are needed to verify the present finding.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"26 5","pages":"847-861"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does intra-oral scan improve the impression accuracy of full-arch implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Zheng-zhen Cai,&nbsp;Xin Li,&nbsp;Xin-Yu Wu,&nbsp;Hong-Chang Lai,&nbsp;Jun-Yu Shi\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cid.13321\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>The present study aimed to systematically review the studies comparing the accuracy of intraoral scan (IOS) and conventional implant impressions (CI) in completely edentulous patients.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL up to December 1, 2023. Clinical studies and in vitro studies reporting the accuracy of digital full arch impressions were included. The primary outcome is the 3-dimensional deviations between the study reference models. A risk of bias assessment was performed for clinical studies. A stratified meta-analysis and a single-armed meta-analysis were conducted.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 49 studies were included, with 8 clinical studies and 41 in vitro studies. For comparison between IOS and conventional impressions, studies were categorized into two groups based on the different measurement methods employed: RMS and CMM. In studies using RMS, the result favored the IOS in the unparalleled situation with the mean difference of −99.29 μm (95% CI: [−141.38, −57.19], <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 81%), while the result was opposite with the mean difference of 13.62 μm (95% CI: [10.97, 16.28], <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 26%) when implants were paralleled. For different brands of IOS, the accuracy ranged from 76.11 μm (95% CI: [42.36, 109.86]) to 158.63 μm (95% CI: [−14.68, 331.93]).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Accuracy of intraoral scan is clinically acceptable in edentulous arches, especially for unparalleled implants. More clinical studies are needed to verify the present finding.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"volume\":\"26 5\",\"pages\":\"847-861\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.13321\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.13321","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

摘要

研究目的本研究旨在系统回顾比较口内扫描(IOS)和传统种植体印模(CI)在全无牙患者中准确性的研究:截至 2023 年 12 月 1 日,在 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane CENTRAL 中进行了电子检索。纳入了报告数字化全牙弓印模准确性的临床研究和体外研究。主要结果是研究参考模型之间的三维偏差。对临床研究进行了偏倚风险评估。进行了分层荟萃分析和单臂荟萃分析:共纳入 49 项研究,其中包括 8 项临床研究和 41 项体外研究。为了比较 IOS 和传统印模,根据采用的不同测量方法将研究分为两组:RMS 和 CMM。在使用 RMS 的研究中,在未并列的情况下,结果更倾向于 IOS,平均差异为 -99.29 μm(95% CI:[-141.38, -57.19],I2 = 81%),而在种植体并列的情况下,结果则相反,平均差异为 13.62 μm(95% CI:[10.97, 16.28],I2 = 26%)。对于不同品牌的 IOS,准确度从 76.11 μm(95% CI:[42.36, 109.86])到 158.63 μm(95% CI:[-14.68, 331.93])不等:口内扫描的准确性在无牙颌牙弓中临床上是可以接受的,尤其是对于无牙颌种植体。需要更多的临床研究来验证这一结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does intra-oral scan improve the impression accuracy of full-arch implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

The present study aimed to systematically review the studies comparing the accuracy of intraoral scan (IOS) and conventional implant impressions (CI) in completely edentulous patients.

Materials and Methods

Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL up to December 1, 2023. Clinical studies and in vitro studies reporting the accuracy of digital full arch impressions were included. The primary outcome is the 3-dimensional deviations between the study reference models. A risk of bias assessment was performed for clinical studies. A stratified meta-analysis and a single-armed meta-analysis were conducted.

Results

A total of 49 studies were included, with 8 clinical studies and 41 in vitro studies. For comparison between IOS and conventional impressions, studies were categorized into two groups based on the different measurement methods employed: RMS and CMM. In studies using RMS, the result favored the IOS in the unparalleled situation with the mean difference of −99.29 μm (95% CI: [−141.38, −57.19], I2 = 81%), while the result was opposite with the mean difference of 13.62 μm (95% CI: [10.97, 16.28], I2 = 26%) when implants were paralleled. For different brands of IOS, the accuracy ranged from 76.11 μm (95% CI: [42.36, 109.86]) to 158.63 μm (95% CI: [−14.68, 331.93]).

Conclusions

Accuracy of intraoral scan is clinically acceptable in edentulous arches, especially for unparalleled implants. More clinical studies are needed to verify the present finding.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
13.90%
发文量
103
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The goal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research is to advance the scientific and technical aspects relating to dental implants and related scientific subjects. Dissemination of new and evolving information related to dental implants and the related science is the primary goal of our journal. The range of topics covered by the journals will include but be not limited to: New scientific developments relating to bone Implant surfaces and their relationship to the surrounding tissues Computer aided implant designs Computer aided prosthetic designs Immediate implant loading Immediate implant placement Materials relating to bone induction and conduction New surgical methods relating to implant placement New materials and methods relating to implant restorations Methods for determining implant stability A primary focus of the journal is publication of evidenced based articles evaluating to new dental implants, techniques and multicenter studies evaluating these treatments. In addition basic science research relating to wound healing and osseointegration will be an important focus for the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信