Statement of problem
The technology behind optical scanners has greatly improved recently, making their dental application advantageous. While their accuracy is now comparable with that of conventional impression materials, whether these techniques have other advantages is unclear.
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether digital scanning for implant-supported restorations is more time-efficient and convenient for the patient.
Material and methods
The study was conducted on September 23, 2020 using 4 different databases (Medline, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus) searching for clinical studies that compared the time needed and/or patient perceptions between those who had undergone the digital scanning procedure and those who had undergone conventional impression making.
Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Outcome variables were measured as standard mean differences (SMDs) by following a fixed-effects model or random-effects model (in the case of high heterogeneity). Digital scanning was more time-efficient and was preferred by patients for all 4 analyzed outcomes (comfort, anxiety, nausea, time perception).
Digital scanning was found to be more time-efficient and convenient than conventional impression making for implant-supported restorations. Additional randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings of this review.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Precision and accuracy of a digital Impression scanner in full-arch implant rehabilitation.Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31: 171-175
- Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review.Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017; 10: 101-120
- Comparative study of dimensional stability and detail reproduction of reformulated and non-reformulated elastomeric impression materials.J Prosthodont. 2021; 30: 345-350
- Dynamic documentation of the smile and the 2D/3D Digital Smile Design process.Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2017; 37: 183-193
- Is the use of digital technologies for the fabrication of implant-supported reconstructions more efficient and/or more effective than conventional techniques: A systematic review.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29: 184-195
- Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 1430-1435
- Patient-centred outcomes comparing transmucosal implant placement with an open approach in the maxilla: a prospective, non-randomized pilot study.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18: 197-203
- Accuracy of a new fast-setting polyether impression material.Int J Prosthodont. 2020; 33: 410-417
- Performance of fast-setting impression materials in the reproduction of subgingival tooth surfaces without soft tissue retraction.Int J Prosthodont. 2014; 27: 366-375
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.PLOS Med. 2009; 21: e1000097
- Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration.in: Higgins J.P.T. Green S. 2011 (Available at:)www.handbook.cochrane.orgDate accessed: March 1, 2021
- Efficacy of standard (SLA) and modified sandblasted and acid-etched (SLActive) dental implants in promoting immediate and/or early occlusal loading protocols: a systematic review of prospective studies.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 359-370
- Patient outcomes and procedure working time for digital versus conventional impressions: A systematic review.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 214-219
- Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.BMJ. 2011; 22: 343
- The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey.CMAJ. 2007; 176: 1091-1096
- Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiologic literature.Epidemiol Rev. 1987; 9: 1-30
- Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression.Stat Med. 2002; 28: 589-624
- Patients’ preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25: 1113-1118
- Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: Operating time and patient preference.J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114: 403-406.e1
- Conventional versus digital impressions for “All-on-Four” restorations.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016; 31: 324-330
- Time-efficiency analysis of the treatment with monolithic implant crowns in a digital workflow: a randomized controlled trial.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 1401-1406
- Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: e185-e189
- Digital vs conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns: A comparison of key considerations.Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31: 577-579
- Digital versus analog procedures for the prosthetic restoration of single implants: a randomized controlled trial with 1 year of follow-up.BioMed Res Int. 2018; 2018: 5325032
- Conventional versus digital impressions for full arch screw-retained maxillary rehabilitations: a randomized clinical Trial.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 07: 16
- Intrasubject comparison of digital vs. conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns: Prosthodontic and patient-centered outcomes.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019; 30: 892-902
- Clinical efficiency and patient preference of immediate digital impression after implant placement for single implant-supported crown.Chin J Dent Res. 2019; 22: 21-28
- Time efficiency and quality of outcomes in a model-free digital workflow using digital impression immediately after implant placement: A double-blind self-controlled clinical trial.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019; 30: 617-626
- Patient and operator centered outcomes in implant dentistry: comparison between fully digital and conventional workflow for single crown and three-unit fixed-bridge.Materials (Basel). 2020; 13: 2781
Published online: March 04, 2021
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
© 2020 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.