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
Comparative Study
. 2024 Dec;25(4):216-217.
doi: 10.1038/s41432-024-01045-z. Epub 2024 Aug 12.

The accuracy of conventional versus digital (intraoral scanner or photogrammetry) impression techniques in full-arch implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review

Nitchakul Joensahakij  1 , Pravej Serichetaphongse  2   3 , Wareeratn Chengprapakorn  4
Affiliations
Comparative Study

The accuracy of conventional versus digital (intraoral scanner or photogrammetry) impression techniques in full-arch implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review

Nitchakul Joensahakij et al. Evid Based Dent. 2024 Dec.

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review aimed to compare the accuracy of conventional impression techniques with digital methods, including intraoral scanners or photogrammetry, in full-arch implant-supported prostheses.

Materials and methods: An electronic search of the MEDLINE (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane) databases was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review included in vitro studies published between January 2000 to January 2024 that compared the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impression techniques. Descriptive analyses were performed using the data extracted from each study.

Results: Twenty-three in vitro studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, eighteen utilized intraoral scanners and five employed photogrammetry. Twelve studies concluded that digital techniques were more accurate than conventional methods, six found conventional techniques to be more accurate, and five reported comparable accuracy between the two methods.

Conclusions: Within limitation of the included studies, digital implant impression technique were generally more accurate than conventional methods for full-arch implant-supported prostheses. This review suggests that future research should use perform standardized methodologies and report consistent accuracy outcomes to enable the inclusion of more studies in a meta-analysis.

Trial registration: The study was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023397916).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

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;14:16–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-013-0343-x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ma T, Nicholls JI, Rubenstein JE. Tolerance measurements of various implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12:371–5. - PubMed
    1. Amornvit P, Rokaya D, Sanohkan S. Comparison of accuracy of current ten intraoral scanners. Biomed Res Int. 2021:2673040. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2673040
    1. Kaya G, Bilmenoglu C. Accuracy of 14 intraoral scanners for the All-on-4 treatment concept: a comparative in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2022;14:388–98. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2022.14.6.388 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Róth I, Czigola A, Fehér D, Vitai V, Joós-Kovács GL, Hermann P, et al. Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22:140 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02176-4 - DOI - PubMed - PMC

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources