Intraoral Scanning Versus Conventional Impression for Implant Prostheses: A Systematic Review

Page Start

0

Page End

0

D.O.I.

10.1922/EJPRD_2811Ribeiro13

• Camilla Sthéfany C. Ribeiro
• Maria Thereza O. Brandão
• Gabrielle Cristiny Moreira
• Sandro B. Bitencourt
• Rodrigo F. de Carvalho
• Cleidiel A. A. Lemos

Abstract

Purpose: To analyze and compare conventional and digital impressions, the effectiveness in implant-supported fixed prosthesis cases regarding accuracy, time, and patient preference. Methods: This review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. Two independent reviewers searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and gray literature (ProQuest) for studies published until September 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. A total of 27 studies were selected, including 737 patients. Results:
Qualitative analysis showed similar prosthetic results and precision for both procedures. Adjustment and impression durations were shorter with digital impressions. Twelve studies that evaluated patients’ perceptions were unanimous about their preference for digital impressions. The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in scanning time in single crowns (P =.001; MD: -7.16; CI: -10.21 to -4.10; heterogeneity P <.001; l2 =98%). Additionally, significant differences were observed in the analyses of adjustment duration (P =.04; MD: -3.33; CI: -6.52 to -0.13; heterogeneity P < .001; l2 =90%) and patient preference (P =.003; MD: 19.02; CI: 6.36 to 31.68; heterogeneity P <.001; l2 =95%) favoring the digital impression. Conclusion: Intraoral scanning provides better results concerning patient perception, impression time, and duration of adjustments.

Keywords
Dental Implants
Precision
Digital Impression
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Operative Time