Objectives: The aim of this study was to systematically revise the state of art of the accuracy of digital and conventional impressions in clinical full-arch scenarios. Methods: Electronic and manual searches were conducted up to December 2024. Only trials comparing the accuracy of digital versus conventional impressions were selected by two independent reviewers. Accuracy was evaluated by analysing the fit of the prostheses obtained through conventional workflows and those obtained from digital workflows using intraoral scanners. Alternatively, accuracy was assessed by comparing the standard tessellation language data acquired from intraoral scanning with those obtained from scanning the physical model. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Meta-analysis was conducted to pool the mean differences from the included studies, with heterogeneity tested by Cochran's Q test and quantified by the I2 index. Results: We included 9 relevant studies from a total of 2535 identified studies. The risk of bias was evaluated as low, and the main results of all the included articles reported similar accuracy between digital and conventional impressions. Random effects meta-analysis resulted in a pooled mean difference of 152.46 (95% C.I. = 76.46-228.46, p-value < 0.001, I2 = 93.48%). Conclusions: In conclusion, the results of the present systematic review reveal contradictory findings regarding the accuracy of digital impressions. However, most studies analysing the clinical performance of prostheses obtained through digital impressions suggest that their accuracy falls within clinically acceptable thresholds. Future research should report comparable outcomes and focus attention on linear deviations, comparing differences between conventional and digital impressions not in absolute terms, but relative to the distance measured.
Accuracy of Full-Arch Intraoral Scans Versus Conventional Impression: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis and a Proposal to Standardise the Analysis of the Accuracy
Zecca P. A.;
2025-01-01
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to systematically revise the state of art of the accuracy of digital and conventional impressions in clinical full-arch scenarios. Methods: Electronic and manual searches were conducted up to December 2024. Only trials comparing the accuracy of digital versus conventional impressions were selected by two independent reviewers. Accuracy was evaluated by analysing the fit of the prostheses obtained through conventional workflows and those obtained from digital workflows using intraoral scanners. Alternatively, accuracy was assessed by comparing the standard tessellation language data acquired from intraoral scanning with those obtained from scanning the physical model. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Meta-analysis was conducted to pool the mean differences from the included studies, with heterogeneity tested by Cochran's Q test and quantified by the I2 index. Results: We included 9 relevant studies from a total of 2535 identified studies. The risk of bias was evaluated as low, and the main results of all the included articles reported similar accuracy between digital and conventional impressions. Random effects meta-analysis resulted in a pooled mean difference of 152.46 (95% C.I. = 76.46-228.46, p-value < 0.001, I2 = 93.48%). Conclusions: In conclusion, the results of the present systematic review reveal contradictory findings regarding the accuracy of digital impressions. However, most studies analysing the clinical performance of prostheses obtained through digital impressions suggest that their accuracy falls within clinically acceptable thresholds. Future research should report comparable outcomes and focus attention on linear deviations, comparing differences between conventional and digital impressions not in absolute terms, but relative to the distance measured.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
