Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies

María Isabel Albanchez-González, Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann, Jesús Peláez-Rico, Carlos López-Suárez, Verónica Rodríguez-Alonso and María Jesús Suárez-García
Additional contact information
María Isabel Albanchez-González: Department of Conservative Dentistry and Orofacial Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann: Department of Dental Clinical Specialties, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Jesús Peláez-Rico: Department of Conservative Dentistry and Orofacial Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Carlos López-Suárez: Department of Conservative Dentistry and Orofacial Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Verónica Rodríguez-Alonso: Department of Conservative Dentistry and Orofacial Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
María Jesús Suárez-García: Department of Conservative Dentistry and Orofacial Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 4, 1-18

Abstract: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the in vitro accuracy of dental implants impressions taken with intraoral scanner compared with impressions taken with conventional techniques. Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic electronic search in the PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases. Some of the employed key terms, combined with the help of Boolean operators, were: “dental implants”, “impression accuracy”, “digital impression” and “conventional impression”. Publication dates ranged from the earliest article available until 31 July 2021. A total of 26 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 14 studies simulated complete edentation (CE), nine partial edentation (PE) and only two simulated a single implant (SI); One study simulated both CE and SI. In cases of PE and SI, most of the studies analyzed found greater accuracy with conventional impression (CI), although digital impression (DI) was also considered adequate. For CE the findings were inconclusive as six studies found greater accuracy with DI, five found better accuracy with CI and four found no differences. According to the results of this systematic review, DI is a valid alternative to CI for implants in PE and SI, although CI appear to be more accurate. For CE the findings were inconclusive, so more studies are needed before DI can be recommended for all implant-supported restorations.

Keywords: accuracy; conventional impression; dental implant; digital impression; in vitro studies; systematic review (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/4/2026/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/4/2026/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:4:p:2026-:d:747157

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().