The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant‐supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research Vol. 29; no. S16; pp. 374 - 392
• Main Authors: Flügge, Tabea, Meer, Wicher Joerd, Gonzalez, Beatriz Gimenez, Vach, Kirstin, Wismeijer, Daniel, Wang, Ping
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Denmark Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.10.2018
• Subjects: Accuracy; Computer-Aided Design; Data processing; Databases, Factual; Dental Implantation; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental materials; Dental Models; Dental Prosthesis Design - methods; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental prosthetics; Dentistry; digital implant impressions; Heterogeneity; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods; Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods; implant impressions; In vivo methods and tests; intraoral scanning; Meta-analysis; Prostheses; Reviews; Surgical implants; Systematic review; Treatment Outcome; computer-aided design; intraoral scanning; digital implant impressions; implant impressions
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.13273

Aim This systematic review and meta‐analysis were conducted to assess and compare the accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions. The review was registered on the PROSPERO register (registration number: CRD42016050730). Material and Methods A systematic literature search was conducted adhering to PRISMA guidelines to identify studies on implant impressions published between 2012 and 2017. Experimental and clinical studies at all levels of evidence published in peer‐reviewed journals were included, excluding expert opinions. Data extraction was performed along defined parameters for studied specimens, digital and conventional impression specifications and outcome assessment. Results Seventy‐nine studies were included for the systematic review, thereof 77 experimental studies, one RCT and one retrospective study. The study setting was in vitro for most of the included studies (75 studies) and in vivo for four studies. Accuracy of conventional impressions was examined in 59 studies, whereas digital impressions were examined in 11 studies. Nine studies compared the accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions. Reported measurements for the accuracy include the following: (a) linear and angular deviations between reference models and test models fabricated with each impression technique; (b) three‐dimensional deviations between impression posts and scan bodies respectively; and (c) fit of implant‐supported frameworks, assessed by measuring marginal discrepancy along implant abutments.) Meta‐analysis was performed of 62 studies. The results of conventional and digital implant impressions exhibited high values for heterogeneity. Conclusions The available data for accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions have a low evidence level and do not include sufficient data on in vivo application to derive clinical recommendations.