The Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital (intraoral Scanner or Photogrammetry) Impression Techniques in Full-arch Implant-supported Prostheses: a Systematic Review

Overview

Journal Evid Based Dent

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2024 Aug 12

PMID 39134687

Authors

Nitchakul Joensahakij

Pravej Serichetaphongse

Wareeratn Chengprapakorn

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review aimed to compare the accuracy of conventional impression techniques with digital methods, including intraoral scanners or photogrammetry, in full-arch implant-supported prostheses.

Materials And Methods: An electronic search of the MEDLINE (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane) databases was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review included in vitro studies published between January 2000 to January 2024 that compared the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impression techniques. Descriptive analyses were performed using the data extracted from each study.

Results: Twenty-three in vitro studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, eighteen utilized intraoral scanners and five employed photogrammetry. Twelve studies concluded that digital techniques were more accurate than conventional methods, six found conventional techniques to be more accurate, and five reported comparable accuracy between the two methods.

Conclusions: Within limitation of the included studies, digital implant impression technique were generally more accurate than conventional methods for full-arch implant-supported prostheses. This review suggests that future research should use perform standardized methodologies and report consistent accuracy outcomes to enable the inclusion of more studies in a meta-analysis.

Trial Registration: The study was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023397916).

Citing Articles

Comparison of the Clinical Evaluation of Digital Tooth Shade Determination Using an Intraoral Scanner with Proven Subjective and Objective Methods.

Budde N, Arnold C, Wienke A, Schweyen R J Clin Med. 2024; 13(22).

PMID: 39597813 PMC: 11595226. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13226668.

References

Buzayan M, Yunus N . Passive Fit in Screw Retained Multi-unit Implant Prosthesis Understanding and Achieving: A Review of the Literature. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014; 14(1):16-23. PMC: 3935037. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-013-0343-x. View

Ma T, Nicholls J, Rubenstein J . Tolerance measurements of various implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997; 12(3):371-5. View

Kaya G, Bilmenoglu C . Accuracy of 14 intraoral scanners for the All-on-4 treatment concept: a comparative study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2023; 14(6):388-398. PMC: 9832143. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2022.14.6.388. View

Roth I, Czigola A, Feher D, Vitai V, Joos-Kovacs G, Hermann P . Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria. BMC Oral Health. 2022; 22(1):140. PMC: 9044896. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02176-4. View

Kosago P, Ungurawasaporn C, Kukiattrakoon B . Comparison of the accuracy between conventional and various digital implant impressions for an implant-supported mandibular complete arch-fixed prosthesis: An in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2022; 32(7):616-624. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13604. View

Ma B, Yue X, Sun Y, Peng L, Geng W . Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study. BMC Oral Health. 2021; 21(1):636. PMC: 8665494. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-02005-0. View

Lee S, Kim S, Lee J, Cheong C . Comparison of Intraoral and Extraoral Digital Scanners: Evaluation of Surface Topography and Precision. Dent J (Basel). 2020; 8(2). PMC: 7344681. DOI: 10.3390/dj8020052. View

Borbola D, Berkei G, Simon B, Romanszky L, Sersli G, DeFee M . In vitro comparison of five desktop scanners and an industrial scanner in the evaluation of an intraoral scanner accuracy. J Dent. 2022; 129:104391. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104391. View

Ke Y, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Chen H, Sun Y . Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated landmarks in the mandible: An in vitro study. J Dent. 2023; 135:104561. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104561. 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.

Onoral O, Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S, Keskin A, Ozan O . Influence of the Angulation and Insertion Depth of Implants on the 3D Trueness of Conventional and Digital Impressions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2022; 37(6):1186-1194. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.9907. View

12.

Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci G, Chen C, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B . Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 27(4):465-72. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12567. View

13.

Marghalani A, Weber H, Finkelman M, Kudara Y, El Rafie K, Papaspyridakos P . Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 119(4):574-579. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.002. View

14.

Rutkunas V, Geciauskaite A, Jegelevicius D, Vaitiekunas M . Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017; 10 Suppl 1:101-120. View

15.

Rutkunas V, Gedrimiene A, Adaskevicius R, Al-Haj Husain N, Ozcan M . Comparison of the Clinical Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Dental Implant Impressions. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2020; 28(4):173-181. DOI: 10.1922/EJPRD_02028Rutkunas09. View

16.

Lee S, Betensky R, Gianneschi G, Gallucci G . Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 26(6):715-9. PMC: 4428303. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12375. View

17.

Albanchez-Gonzalez M, Cortes-Breton Brinkmann J, Pelaez-Rico J, Lopez-Suarez C, Rodriguez-Alonso V, Suarez-Garcia M . Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(4). PMC: 8872312. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19042026. View

18.

Alikhasi M, Alsharbaty M, Moharrami M . Digital Implant Impression Technique Accuracy: A Systematic Review. Implant Dent. 2017; 26(6):929-935. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000683. View

19.

Zhang Y, Shi J, Qian S, Qiao S, Lai H . Accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions taken using intraoral scanners and related variables: A systematic review. Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2021; 14(2):157-179. View

20.

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