Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2023; 17(04): 964-973
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1758798
Review Article

Linear Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners for Full-Arch Impressions of Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Franciele Floriani 
1   Department of Periodontology, University of Florida College of Dentistry, Gainesville, Florida, United States
2   Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil
,
Guilherme Carpena Lopes 
3   Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil
,
Alexandre Cabrera
4   Division of Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dental Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States
,
Wagner Duarte
5   Department of Periodontology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States
,
Panagiotis Zoidis 
4   Division of Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dental Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States
,
Dayane Oliveira
6   Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, Center for Dental Biomaterials, College of Dentistry, Gainesville, Florida, United States
,
Mateus Garcia Rocha
6   Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, Center for Dental Biomaterials, College of Dentistry, Gainesville, Florida, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This article compares the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) used in the digital impression of full arches to fabricate implant-supported complete prostheses. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered in the Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/CPM9K). Six electronic databases, gray literature databases, and a manual search were performed in April 2022. Studies that evaluated the accuracy of intraoral scan impressions compared with conventional impressions in full-arch impressions were included for complete implant-supported prostheses. In addition, an adapted checklist for reporting in vitro studies was used to assess the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects Hunter– Schmidt model. Nine studies were included in the analysis. IOS impressions present higher accuracy (137.86 μm) than conventional impressions (182.51 μm) (p<0.001). The heterogeneity of the study's methodology was I2¼18.34. However, impression accuracy varies significantly with scan body type, IOS type, scanning strategy, and modification technique. For most IOS systems, the acceptable clinical threshold of linear accuracy of 200 μm can be achieved, except for the True Definition Scanner in one of the studies. Based on the results of the included studies, digital impressions using IOS present similar or better linear accuracy than conventional impression techniques.

Keywords

systematic review - meta-analysis - digital dentistry - implant-supported dentures - intraoral scanners - impression materials

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Article published online:
30 January 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Amin S, Weber HP, 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rech-Ortega C, Fernández-Estevan L, Solá-Ruíz MF, Agustín-Panadero R, Labaig-Rueda C. Comparative in vitro study of the accuracy of impression techniques for dental implants: direct technique with an elastomeric impression material versus intraoral scanner. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2019; 24 (01) e89-e95
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Gallucci GO, Doukoudakis A, Weber HP, Chronopoulos V. Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 (04) 836-845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzade M. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: effect of implant angulation and connection type. Int J Dent 2018; 2018: 3761750
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 2015; 46 (01) 9-17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Taylor TK, Agar JR, Vogiatzi T. Implant prosthodontics current perspective and future direction. Int J Oral Maxillofac 2010; 15: 66-75
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Cho SH, Schaefer O, Thompson GA, Guentsch A. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 113 (04) 310-315
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bohner L, Gamba DD, Hanisch M. et al. Accuracy of digital technologies for the scanning of facial, skeletal, and intraoral tissues: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 121 (02) 246-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Joda T, Gallucci GO. The virtual patient in dental medicine. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26 (06) 725-726
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Katase H, Kanazawa M, Inokoshi M, Minakuchi S. Face simulation system for complete dentures by applying rapid prototyping. J Prosthet Dent 2013; 109 (06) 353-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Schoenbaum TR. Dentistry in the digital age: an update. Dent Today 2012; 31 (02) 108-113 , 110, 112–113
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115 (03) 313-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Atieh MA, Ritter AV, Ko CC, Duqum I. Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: a clinical study using a reference appliance. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 118 (03) 400-405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Keul C, Güth JF. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison. Clin Oral Investig 2020; 24 (02) 735-745
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27 (04) 465-472
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Karl M, Graef F, Schubinski P, Taylor T. Effect of intraoral scanning on the passivity of fit of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. Quintessence Int 2012; 43 (07) 555-562
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Mehl A, Ender A, Mörmann W, Attin T. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 2009; 12 (01) 11-28
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Flügge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, Nelson K. Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners. Int J Prosthodont 2016; 29 (03) 277-283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Patzelt SBM, Vonau S, Stampf S, Att W. Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws. J Am Dent Assoc 2013; 144 (08) 914-920
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Albayrak B, Sukotjo C, Wee AG, Korkmaz İH, Bayındır F. Three-dimensional accuracy of conventional versus digital complete arch implant impressions. J Prosthodont 2021; 30 (02) 163-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J. et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62 (10) e1-e34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Krithikadatta J, Gopikrishna V, Datta M. CRIS Guidelines (Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies): a concept note on the need for standardized guidelines for improving quality and transparency in reporting in-vitro studies in experimental dental research. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17 (04) 301-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kim KR, Seo KY, Kim S. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 122 (06) 543-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 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 2018; 22 (03) 1253-1262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Abdel-Azim T, Zandinejad A, Elathamna E, Lin W, Morton D. The influence of digital fabrication options on the accuracy of dental implant-based single units and complete-arch frameworks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 (06) 1281-1288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Tan MY, Yee SHX, Wong KM, Tan YH, Tan KBC. Comparison of three-dimensional accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions: effect of interimplant distance in an edentulous arch. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34 (02) 366-380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Fletcher J. What is heterogeneity and is it important?. BMJ 2007; 334 (7584): 94-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Chochlidakis K, Papaspyridakos P, Tsigarida A. et al. Digital versus conventional full-arch implant impressions: a prospective study on 16 edentulous maxillae. J Prosthodont 2020; 29 (04) 281-286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Park JM. Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form. J Adv Prosthodont 2016; 8 (05) 354-362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Müller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int 2016; 47 (04) 343-349 DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a35524.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 International Organization for Standardization. ISO 5725–2:2019. Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of Measurement Methods and Results d Part 2: Basic Method for the Determination of Repeatability and Reproducibility of a Standard Measurement Method. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Stefanelli LV, Franchina A, Pranno A. et al. Use of intraoral scanners for full dental arches: could different strategies or overlapping software affect accuracy?. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18 (19) 9946
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Fukazawa S, Odaira C, Kondo H. Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res 2017; 61 (04) 450-459
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Oh KC, Park JM, Moon HS. Effects of scanning strategy and scanner type on the accuracy of intraoral scans: a new approach for assessing the accuracy of scanned data. J Prosthodont 2020; 29 (06) 518-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 D'haese R, Vrombaut T, Roeykens H, Vandeweghe S. In vitro accuracy of digital and conventional impressions for full-arch implant-supported prostheses. J Clin Med 2022; 11 (03) 594
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Albayrak B, Sukotjo C, Wee AG, Korkmaz İH, Bayındır F. Three-dimensional accuracy of conventional versus digital complete arch implant impressions. J Prosthodont 2021; 30 (02) 163-170 DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13264.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar