Does intra-oral scan improve the impression accuracy of full-arch implant-supported prostheses : A systematic review and meta-analysis
© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC..
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.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - year:2024 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Clinical implant dentistry and related research - (2024) vom: 22. März |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Cai, Zheng-Zhen [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Dental implants |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 22.03.2024 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status Publisher |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1111/cid.13321 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM370068793 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM370068793 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240323002402.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240323s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/cid.13321 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1341.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM370068793 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38517307 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Cai, Zheng-Zhen |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Does intra-oral scan improve the impression accuracy of full-arch implant-supported prostheses |b A systematic review and meta-analysis |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 22.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status Publisher | ||
| 520 | |a © 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC. | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 520 | |a 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]) | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a dental implants | |
| 650 | 4 | |a digital scanning | |
| 650 | 4 | |a edentulism | |
| 650 | 4 | |a implant impression | |
| 650 | 4 | |a intraoral scanning | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Li, Xin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wu, Xin-Yu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lai, Hong-Chang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Shi, Jun-Yu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Clinical implant dentistry and related research |d 1999 |g (2024) vom: 22. März |w (DE-627)NLM112652921 |x 1708-8208 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g year:2024 |g day:22 |g month:03 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cid.13321 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |j 2024 |b 22 |c 03 | ||