Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun;33(6):573-585.
doi: 10.1111/clr.13951. Epub 2022 May 18.

Accuracy of digital implant impressions in clinical studies: A systematic review

Affiliations

Accuracy of digital implant impressions in clinical studies: A systematic review

Alexander Schmidt et al. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022 Jun.

Abstract

Objectives: The use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for digital implant impressions in daily clinical practice is increasing. However, no structured literature review on the accuracy of digital implant impressions in clinical studies has been described to date. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to answer the PICO question: Which accuracy is described for digital implant impressions in clinical studies?

Material and methods: An electronic database search was conducted in December 2021 using MeSH terms and free-text search. English-language studies addressing the accuracy of digital implant impressions in clinical studies involving at least 10 patients were included. All clinical indications were considered.

Results: Eight publications between 2014 and 2021 matched the review criteria. However, the study designs showed considerable differences. The number of implants within the studies ranged from 1 to 6, and the number of patients ranged from 10 to 39. The oldest study (2014) revealed the highest deviation for linear distances at 1000 ± 650 µm, whereas the other studies reported data in the range of 360 ± 46 µm to 40 ± 20 µm. In one study, no numerical data were reported and all studies compared digital and conventional implant impressions.

Conclusions: The number of clinical studies on the accuracy of digital implant impressions is low. Thus, the impact of different factors, such as the scanpath or scanbody, could not be identified. However, the accuracy of recent IOSs for digital implant impressions in patients was shown to be clinically acceptable. Nevertheless, the transfer error still needs to be considered when fabricating implant-supported restorations.

Keywords: clinical study; dental implants; dental impression technique; digital dentistry; dimensional measurement accuracy; intraoral scanner.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Abduo, J., & Elseyoufi, M. (2018). Accuracy of intraoral scanners: A systematic review of influencing factors. European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry, 26(3), 101-121. https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_01752Abduo21
    1. Abduo, J., & Palamara, J. E. A. (2021). Accuracy of digital impressions versus conventional impressions for 2 implants: An in vitro study evaluating the effect of implant angulation. International Journal of Implant Dentistry, 7(1), 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00355-6
    1. Abu Ghofa, A., & Onoral, O. (2021). An assessment of the passivity of the fit of multiunit screw-retained implant frameworks manufactured by using additive and subtractive technologies. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.06.022. Online ahead of print.
    1. Ahlholm, P., Sipila, K., Vallittu, P., Jakonen, M., & Kotiranta, U. (2018). Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review. Journal of Prosthodontics, 27(1), 35-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12527
    1. Alikhasi, M., Siadat, H., Beyabanaki, E., & Kharazifard, M. J. (2015). Accuracy of implant position transfer and surface detail reproduction with different impression materials and techniques. Journal of Dentistry (Tehran), 12(10), 774-783.

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources