Welcome to PracticeUpdate! We hope you are enjoying access to a selection of our top-read and most recent articles. Please register today for a free account and gain full access to all of our expert-selected content.
Already Have An Account? Log in Now
Accuracy of Digital Scans vs Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics
TAKE-HOME MESSAGE
- Nowadays, intraoral scanning has become more like a replacement for conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics. This overview of systematic reviews evaluated the accuracy of digital scanning versus conventional impression techniques for fixed prostheses in partially and completely edentulous adults. This study included 28 systematic reviews (12 with meta-analyses). No statistically significant differences were found between the two methods for crowns, fixed partial dentures, and tooth- or implant-supported restorations in terms of accuracy (trueness and precision) and marginal/internal adaptation. However, conventional impressions demonstrated superior accuracy for complete-arch fixed prostheses compared with digital scans. Notably, 67.9% of the studies scored critically low confidence using the AMSTAR 2 tool, highlighting the methodological weaknesses across the studies.
- Digital scanning and conventional impressions show comparable accuracy for most fixed restorations, but conventional impressions remain more accurate for complete-arch prostheses. Therefore, clinicians should consider these factors, along with the limitations of the current evidence and newer technologies, when choosing an impression method.
abstract
This abstract is available on the publisher's site.
Access this abstract now Full Text Available for ClinicalKey SubscribersSTATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Several systematic reviews have compared the accuracy of conventional impression making and digital recording techniques, with sometimes different results. A systematic overview of these studies is lacking.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this overview of systematic reviews was to examine the accuracy of digital scans and conventional impressions for tooth- or implant-supported fixed restorations in partially and completely edentulous adult patients.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Four databases (Medline via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were searched for systematic reviews according to preset eligibility criteria. Two calibrated evaluators screened and assessed the overall confidence of the included reviews using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool. Several review characteristics were recorded, including accuracy in terms of trueness and/or precision. The Jadad et al1 decision algorithm was used to select the best evidence, and a citation matrix was used to show overlaps in the studies.
RESULTS
From the 307 studies that were retrieved, 28 systematic reviews were included in this overview. Among these, 12 performed meta-analyses, and 18 comprised both in vitro and in vivo primary studies. Generally, digital scanning and conventional impression techniques for crowns and fixed partial dentures, for implant-supported fixed restorations, and for both tooth- and implant-supported restorations showed no statistically significant differences in terms of accuracy (trueness and precision) and marginal and internal adaptation (P>.05). However, conventional impressions outperformed digital scans for complete-arch fixed dental prostheses in terms of accuracy. Regarding methodological quality, most systematic reviews (67.9%) received critically low overall confidence based on AMSTAR 2.
CONCLUSIONS
No significant differences were reported in terms of marginal and internal fit between prosthetic restorations constructed after digital scanning and conventional impression making. The opportunity exists to enhance the methodological quality of systematic reviews with regard to the accuracy of dental recordings.
Additional Info
Disclosure statements are available on the authors' profiles:
Digital scans versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: An overview of systematic reviews
J Prosthet Dent 2024 Dec 02;[EPub Ahead of Print], A Kaitatzidou, A Chalazoniti, CM Faggion, A Bakopoulou, DM Barbosa-Liz, NN GiannakopoulosFrom MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.