Advertisement
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Accuracy of intraoral scanners for static virtual articulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of multiple outcomes

Published:November 02, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.09.005

      Abstract

      Statement of problem

      Static virtual articulation with intraoral scanners (IOSs) can eliminate the human errors related to conventional articulation methods and enhance accuracy. A systematic review and meta-analysis based on multiple accuracy outcomes can combine the available literature and provide an evidence-based conclusion.

      Purpose

      The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate whether static virtual articulation with IOSs has acceptable accuracy for completely dentate and partially edentulous patients.

      Material and methods

      An electronic search was conducted on the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. In addition, a manual search through reference lists of selected articles was performed. Clinical and in vitro studies evaluating the accuracy of static virtual articulation with IOSs based on diagnostic accuracy, trueness, precision, and occlusion of fabricated fixed restorations were included. The pooled results included sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR), diagnostic odds ratios (DORs), mean values, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results were presented as forest plots. The summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) was displayed to summarize the diagnostic test performance.

      Results

      The initial search resulted in a total of 5061 articles, of which 29 articles were included in the analysis. The virtual interocclusal records (VIRs) with IOSs showed acceptable pooled results for diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity: 0.76; specificity: 0.80; DOR: 14.77, area under the SROC (AUC): 0.87; cut off point Q∗: 80; +LR: 3.66; -LR: 0.31). The pooled data for trueness and precision were within the acceptable limits. The pooled mean (95% CI) for trueness based on linear deviations was 243.53 (144.90, 342.17). The pooled mean (95% CI) for precision based on 3D deviation of articulated models was 54.97 (43.49, 66.46). In addition, the included studies reported accurate occlusion for fixed restorations fabricated by using VIRs with IOSs. Moreover, most of the studies on trueness based on virtual occlusal contact area reported acceptable accuracy.

      Conclusions

      VIRs with IOSs had acceptable accuracy for static virtual articulation.
      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
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Edher F.
        • Hannam A.G.
        • Tobias D.L.
        • Wyatt C.C.L.
        The accuracy of virtual interocclusal registration during intraoral scanning.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 904-912
        • Iwauchi Y.
        • Tanaka S.
        • Kamimura-Sugimura E.
        • Baba K.
        Clinical evaluation of the precision of interocclusal registration by using digital and conventional techniques.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.021
        • Shadid R.
        • Sadaqah N.
        Accuracy of virtual static articulation: A systematic review.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2022; https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.7407
        • Abdulateef S.
        • Edher F.
        • Hannam A.G.
        • Tobias D.L.
        • Wyatt C.C.L.
        Clinical accuracy and reproducibility of virtual interocclusal records.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 667-673
        • Delong R.
        • Ko C.C.
        • Anderson G.C.
        • Hodges J.S.
        • Douglas W.H.
        Comparing maximum intercuspal contacts of virtual dental patients and mounted dental casts.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 88: 622-630
        • Okunami T.R.
        • Kusnoto B.
        • BeGole E.
        • Evans C.A.
        • Sadowsky C.
        • Fadavi S.
        Assessing the american board of orthodontics objective grading system: Digital vs plaster dental casts.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131: 51-56
        • Wriedt S.
        • Schmidtmann I.
        • Niemann M.
        • Wehrbein H.
        Digital 3D image of bimaxillary casts connected by a vestibular scan.
        J Orofac Orthop. 2013; 74: 309-318
        • Moher D.
        • Liberati A.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Altman
        Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
        Int J Surg. 2010; 8: 336-341
        • Whiting P.
        • Rutjes A.W.
        • Reitsma J.B.
        • Bossuyt P.M.
        • Kleijnen J.
        The development of QUADAS: A tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003; 3: 25
        • Jones C.M.
        • Athanasiou T.
        Summary receiver operating characteristic curve analysis techniques in the evaluation of diagnostic tests.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2005; 79: 16-20
        • Higgins J.P.
        • Thompson S.G.
        • Deeks J.J.
        • Altman D.G.
        Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.
        BMJ. 2003; 327: 557-560
        • Buduru S.
        • Finta E.
        • Almasan O.
        • Fluerasu M.
        • Manziuc M.
        • Iacob S.
        • et al.
        Clinical occlusion analysis versus semi-adjustable articulator and virtual articulator occlusion analysis.
        Med Pharm Rep. 2020; 93: 292-296
        • Nemli S.K.
        • Wolfart S.
        • Reich S.
        InLab and Cerec Connect: virtual contacts in maximum intercuspation compared with original contacts-an in vitro study.
        Int J Comput Dent. 2012; 15: 23-31
        • Arslan Y.
        • Bankoğlu Güngör M.
        • Karakoca Nemli S.
        • Kökdoğan Boyacı B.
        • Aydın C.
        Comparison of maximum intercuspal contacts of articulated casts and virtual casts requiring posterior fixed partial dentures.
        J Prosthodont. 2017; 26: 594-598
        • Fraile C.
        • Ferreiroa A.
        • Romeo M.
        • Alonso R.
        • Pradíes G.
        Clinical study comparing the accuracy of interocclusal records, digitally obtained by three different devices.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2022; 26: 1957-1962
        • Fraile C.
        • Ferreiroa A.
        • Solaberrieta E.
        • Pradíes G.
        Intraoral versus extraoral digital occlusal records: a pilot study.
        Int J Comput Dent. 2018; 21: 329-333
        • Li L.
        • Chen H.
        • Wang Y.
        • Sun Y.
        Construction of virtual intercuspal occlusion: Considering tooth displacement.
        J Oral Rehabil. 2021; 48: 701-710
        • Botsford K.P.
        • Frazier M.C.
        • Ghoneima A.A.M.
        • Utreja A.
        • Bhamidipalli S.S.
        • Stewart K.T.
        Precision of the virtual occlusal record.
        Angle Orthod. 2019; 89: 751-757
        • Camcı H.
        • Salmanpour F.
        A new technique for testing accuracy and sensitivity of digital bite registration: A prospective comparative study.
        Int Orthod. 2021; 19: 425-432
        • Gintaute A.
        • Keeling A.J.
        • Osnes C.A.
        • Zitzmann N.U.
        • Ferrari M.
        • Joda T.
        Precision of maxillo-mandibular registration with intraoral scanners in vitro.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2020; 64: 114-119
        • Ayuso-Montero R.
        • Mariano-Hernandez Y.
        • Khoury-Ribas L.
        • Rovira-Lastra B.
        • Willaert E.
        • Martinez-Gomis J.
        Reliability and Validity of T-scan and 3D Intraoral Scanning for Measuring the Occlusal Contact Area.
        J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 19-25
        • Lee H.
        • Cha J.
        • Chun Y.S.
        • Kim M.
        Comparison of the occlusal contact area of virtual models and actual models: A comparative in vitro study on Class I and Class II malocclusion models.
        BMC Oral Health. 2018; 18: 109
        • Krahenbuhl J.T.
        • Cho S.H.
        • Irelan J.
        • Bansal N.K.
        Accuracy and precision of occlusal contacts of stereolithographic casts mounted by digital interocclusal registrations.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 231-236
        • Lee J.D.
        • Gallucci G.O.
        • Lee S.J.
        An in-vitro evaluation of articulation accuracy for digitally milled models vs. conventional gypsum casts.
        Dent J (Basel). 2022; 10: 11
        • Batson E.R.
        • Cooper L.F.
        • Duqum I.
        • Mendonça G.
        Clinical outcomes of three different crown systems with CAD/CAM technology.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 770-777
        • Berrendero S.
        • Salido M.P.
        • Ferreiroa A.
        • Valverde A.
        • Pradíes G.
        Comparative study of all-ceramic crowns obtained from conventional and digital impressions: Clinical findings.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 23: 1745-1751
        • Gjelvold B.
        • Chrcanovic B.R.
        • Korduner E.K.
        • Collin-Bagewitz I.
        • Kisch J.
        Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A Randomized Clinical Trial.
        J Prosthodont. 2016; 25: 282-287
        • Kollmuss M.
        • Kist S.
        • Goeke J.E.
        • Hickel R.
        • Huth K.C.
        Comparison of chairside and laboratory CAD/CAM to conventional produced all-ceramic crowns regarding morphology, occlusion, and aesthetics.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20: 791-797
        • Zimmermann M.
        • Ender A.
        • Attin T.
        • Mehl A.
        Accuracy of buccal scan procedures for the registration of habitual intercuspation.
        Oper Dent. 2018; 43: 57380
        • Jaschouz S.
        • Mehl A.
        Reproducibility of habitual intercuspation in vivo.
        J Dent. 2014; 42: 210-218
        • Ries J.M.
        • Grünler C.
        • Wichmann M.
        • Matta R.E.
        Three-dimensional analysis of the accuracy of conventional and completely digital interocclusal registration methods.
        J Prosthet. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.005
        • Porter J.L.
        • Carrico C.K.
        • Lindauer S.J.
        • Tüfekçi E.
        Comparison of intraoral and extraoral scanners on the accuracy of digital model articulation.
        J Orthod. 2018; 45: 275-282
        • Osnes C.
        • Wu J.
        • Ferrari M.
        • Joda T.
        • Keeling A.
        Sources of error in maximum intercuspation from complete dentate full-arch intraoral scans in vitro.
        Int J Comput Dent. 2021; 24: 283-291
        • Iwaki Y.
        • Wakabayashi N.
        • Igarashi Y.
        Dimensional accuracy of optical bite registration in single and multiple unit restorations.
        Oper Dent. 2013; 38: 309-315
        • Wong K.Y.
        • Esguerra R.J.
        • Chia V.A.P.
        • Tan Y.H.
        • Tan K.B.C.
        Three-dimensional accuracy of digital static interocclusal registration by three intraoral scanner systems.
        J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 120-128
        • Ren S.
        • Morton D.
        • Lin W.S.
        Accuracy of virtual interocclusal records for partially edentulous patients.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 860-865
        • Lee Y.C.
        • Kim J.E.
        • Nam N.E.
        • Shin S.H.
        • Lim J.H.
        • Lee K.W.
        • et al.
        Influence of edentulous conditions on intraoral scanning accuracy of virtual interocclusal record in quadrant scan.
        Applied Sciences. 2021; 11: 1489
        • Glas A.S.
        • Lijmer J.G.
        • Prins M.H.
        • Bonsel G.J.
        • Bossuyt P.M.
        The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 56: 1129-1135
        • Kent P.
        • Hancock M.J.
        Interpretation of dichotomous outcomes: sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and pre-test and post-test probability.
        J Physiother. 2016; 62: 231-233