Accuracy of Complete-Arch Implant Digital Scans: Effect of Scanning Protocol, Number of Implants, and Scan Body Splinting

Denneulin, Thomas; Rignon-Bret, Christophe; Ravalec, Guy; Tapie, Laurent; Bouter, Denis

doi:10.11607/ijp.7332

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Subsequently, 92 studies persisted for full text examination. Among these, 37 studies were excluded for the following reasons: (23) did not include comparisons between different scanning techniques, 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 (7) were clinical studies, 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 (5) full-text manuscripts were inaccessible, 52 53 54 55 56 (1) did not assess accuracy on teeth, 57 and (1) did not use any digital IOS. 58 Ultimately, 55 documents were included in the qualitative analysis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanners: a meta-analysis of in vitro studies

Hardan,

Bourgi,

Lukomska-Szymanska

et al. 2023

J Adv Prosthodont

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE This study aimed to investigate whether the accuracy of intraoral scanners is influenced by different scanning strategies in an in vitro setting, through a systematic review and meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 standard. The following PICOS approach was used: population, tooth impressions; intervention, the use of intraoral scanners with scanning strategies different from the manufacturer’s instructions; control, the use of intraoral scanners following the manufacturers’ requirements; outcome, accuracy of intraoral scanners; type of studies, in vitro . A comprehensive literature search was conducted across various databases including Embase, SciELO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria were based on in vitro studies that reported the accuracy of digital impressions using intraoral scanners. Analysis was performed using Review Manager software (version 5.3.5; Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Global comparisons were made using a standardized mean difference based on random-effect models, with a significance level of α = 0.05. RESULTS The meta-analysis included 15 articles. Digital impression accuracy significantly improved under dry conditions ( P < 0.001). Moreover, trueness and precision were enhanced when artificial landmarks were used ( P ≤ 0.02) and when an S-shaped pattern was followed ( P ≤ 0.01). However, the type of light used did not have a significant impact on the accuracy of the digital intraoral scanners ( P ≥ 0.16). CONCLUSION The accuracy of digital intraoral scanners can be enhanced by employing scanning processes using artificial landmarks and digital impressions under dry conditions.

show abstract