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
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Dec 6;9(1):48.
doi: 10.1186/s40729-023-00517-8.

Accuracy of digital implant impressions obtained using intraoral scanners: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo studies

Jie Ma #  1 , Binghua Zhang #  1 , Hao Song  2 , Dongle Wu  1 , Tao Song  3
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Accuracy of digital implant impressions obtained using intraoral scanners: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo studies

Jie Ma et al. Int J Implant Dent. .

Abstract

Purpose: This systematic review aimed to investigate the accuracy of intraoral scan (IOS) impressions of implant-supported restorations in in vivo studies.

Methods: A systematic electronic search and review of studies on the accuracy of IOS implant impressions were conducted to analyze the peer-reviewed literature published between 1989 and August 2023. The bias analysis was performed by two reviewers. Data on the study characteristics, accuracy outcomes, and related variables were extracted. A meta-analysis of randomized control trials was performed to investigate the impact of IOS on peri-implant crestal bone loss and the time involved in the impression procedure.

Results: Ten in vivo studies were included in this systematic review for final analysis. Six studies investigated the trueness of IOS impressions, but did not reach the same conclusions. One study assessed the precision of IOS impressions for a single implant. Four clinical studies examined the accuracy of IOS implant impressions with a follow-up of 1-2 years. In full arches, IOS impression procedure needed significantly less time than conventional one (mean difference for procedure time was 8.59 min [6.78, 10.40 min], P < 0.001), prosthetic survival rate was 100%, and marginal bone levels of all participants could be stably maintained (mean difference in marginal bone loss at 12 months was 0.03 mm [-0.08, 0.14 mm], P = 0.55).

Conclusions: The accuracy of IOS impressions of implant-supported restorations varied greatly depending on the scanning strategy. The trueness and precision of IOS in the partial and complete arches remain unclear and require further assessment. Based on follow-up clinical studies, IOS impressions were accurate in clinical practice. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, as some evidences are obtained from the same research group.

Keywords: Accuracy; Implants; Impression; Intraoral scanning.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram of search strategy
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
A The risk of bias for included comparative studies. B The risk of bias for included RCTs. C The risk of bias for included one single-arm study
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plots for impression procedure time of included RCTs
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plots for impression additional time of included RCTs
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Forest plots for the marginal bone loss of included RCTs at 6 months evaluation
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Forest plots for the marginal bone loss of included RCTs at 12 months evaluation
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Buzayan MM, Yunus NB. Passive fit in screw retained multi-unit implant prosthesis understanding and achieving: a review of the literature. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014;14(1):16–23. doi: 10.1007/s13191-013-0343-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sahin S, Cehreli MC. The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status. Implant Dent. 2001;10(2):85–92. doi: 10.1097/00008505-200104000-00003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Michaels GC, Carr AB, Larsen PE. Effect of prosthetic superstructure accuracy on the osteointegrated implant bone interface. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1997;83(2):198–205. doi: 10.1016/S1079-2104(97)90006-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Katsoulis J, Takeichi T, Sol Gaviria A, Peter L, Katsoulis K. Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10(Suppl 1):121–138. - PubMed
    1. Flügge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(Suppl 16):374–392. doi: 10.1111/clr.13273. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources