Precision and Practical Usefulness of Intraoral Scanners in Implant Dentistry: A Systematic Literature Review

Overview

Journal J Clin Exp Dent

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2020 Sep 11

PMID 32913577

Citations 7

Authors

Ignacio Garcia-Gil

Jorge Cortes-Breton-Brinkmann

Jaime Jimenez-Garcia

Jesus Pelaez-Rico

Maria-Jesus Suarez-Garcia

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of digital impression techniques for implant-supported restorations, and to assess their economic feasibility.

Material And Methods: Two independent electronic database searches were conducted in the Pubmed/MedLine, Cochrane Library, and Lilacs databases complimented by a manual search, selecting relevant clinical and studies published between 1st January 2009 and 28st February 2019. All type of studies ( and ) were included in this systematic review.

Results: Twenty-seven studies (8 and 19 studies) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. No meta-analysis was performed due to a large heterogeneity of the study protocols. The passive fit of superstructures on dental implants presented similar results between digital and conventional impression techniques. The studies considered that several factors influence the accuracy of implant impression taking: distance and angulation between implants, depth of placement, type of scanner, scanning strategy, characteristics of scanbody, and operator experience. Regarding the economic viability of intraoral scanning systems, only one study reported any benefit in comparison with conventional techniques.

Conclusions: Digital impressions of dental implants can be considered a viable alternative in cases of one or two contiguous dental implants. However, more studies are needed to evaluate the accuracy of digital techniques in full-arch implant-supported restorations. Intraoral scanner, dental implant, prosthesis, misfit, systematic review.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of Polymethyl Methacrylate as a Provisional Material in a Fully Digital Workflow for Immediate-Load Complete-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses over Three Months.

Garza L, Crooke E, Valles M, Soliva J, Rodriguez X, Rodeja M Materials (Basel). 2025; 18(3).

PMID: 39942227 PMC: 11818157. DOI: 10.3390/ma18030562.

Reliability of Extraoral Scanners in Capturing 3D Geometry for Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review.

Alqahtani N Med Sci Monit. 2024; 30:e946470.

PMID: 39663660 PMC: 11650897. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.946470.

[Influence of implant depth and scanning rod length on accuracy of digital impression for mandibular posterior single-tooth implant restoration].

Sun S, Zheng X, Gan H, Tian R, Xie X Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2024; 44(11):2250-2255.

PMID: 39623282 PMC: 11605206. DOI: 10.12122/j.issn.1673-4254.2024.11.23.

Text mining analysis of scientific literature on digital intraoral scanners in dentistry: Bibliometric analysis.

Saini R, Alshadidi A, Rakhra J, Aldosari L, Bin Hassan S, Quadri S Digit Health. 2024; 10:20552076241260837.

PMID: 38840660 PMC: 11151775. DOI: 10.1177/20552076241260837.

Intraoral Scan Accuracy and Time Efficiency in Implant-Supported Fixed Partial Dentures: A Systematic Review.

Pullishery F, Huraib W, Alruhaymi A, Alharandah W, AlDara E, Benten M Cureus. 2023; 15(10):e48027.

PMID: 38034200 PMC: 10688193. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.48027.

References

Araujo M, Lindhe J . Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 2005; 32(2):212-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00642.x. View

Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, Pradies G . Accuracy of a Digital Impression System Based on Active Triangulation Technology With Blue Light for Implants: Effect of Clinically Relevant Parameters. Implant Dent. 2015; 24(5):498-504. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000283. View

Branemark P, Hansson B, Adell R, BREINE U, Lindstrom J, HALLEN O . Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977; 16:1-132. View

Flugge T, van der Meer W, Gonzalez B, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P . The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29 Suppl 16:374-392. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13273. View

Kilkenny C, Browne W, Cuthill I, Emerson M, Altman D . Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2010; 8(6):e1000412. PMC: 2893951. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412. View

Gherlone E, Ferrini F, Crespi R, Gastaldi G, Cappare P . Digital impressions for fabrication of definitive "all-on-four" restorations. Implant Dent. 2015; 24(1):125-9. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000206. View

Faggion Jr C . Guidelines for reporting pre-clinical in vitro studies on dental materials. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2012; 12(4):182-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2012.10.001. View

Muhlemann S, Kraus R, Hammerle C, Thoma D . Is the use of digital technologies for the fabrication of implant-supported reconstructions more efficient and/or more effective than conventional techniques: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29 Suppl 18:184-195. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13300. View

Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, Pradies G . Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013; 17 Suppl 1:e54-64. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12124. View

10.

Amin S, Weber H, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P . Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28(11):1360-1367. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12994. View

11.

Joda T, Bragger U . Complete digital workflow for the production of implant-supported single-unit monolithic crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25(11):1304-1306. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12270. View

12.

Koch G, Gallucci G, Lee S . Accuracy in the digital workflow: From data acquisition to the digitally milled cast. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115(6):749-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.004. View

13.

Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, Pradies G . Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29(4):853-62. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3343. View

14.

Chia V, Esguerra R, Teoh K, Teo J, Wong K, Tan K . In Vitro Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions: The Effect of Implant Angulation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017; 32(2):313–321. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.5087. View

15.

McHugh M . Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012; 22(3):276-82. PMC: 3900052. View

16.

Menini M, Setti P, Pera F, Pera P, Pesce P . Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure. Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 22(3):1253-1262. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-017-2217-9. View

17.

Mangano F, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, Mijiritsky E, Mangano C . Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study. PLoS One. 2016; 11(9):e0163107. PMC: 5042463. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163107. View

18.

Chew A, Esguerra R, Teoh K, Wong K, Ng S, Tan K . Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions: Effects of Different Scanners and Implant Level. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016; 32(1):70-80. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.4942. View

19.

Joda T, Bragger U . Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 27(12):e185-e189. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12600. View

20.

Gimenez B, Pradies G, Martinez-Rus F, Ozcan M . Accuracy of two digital implant impression systems based on confocal microscopy with variations in customized software and clinical parameters. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015; 30(1):56-64. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3689. View