These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparative assessment of complete-coverage, fixed tooth-supported prostheses fabricated from digital scans or conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Author: Bandiaky ON, Le Bars P, Gaudin A, Hardouin JB, Cheraud-Carpentier M, Mbodj EB, Soueidan A.
    Journal: J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Jan; 127(1):71-79. PubMed ID: 33143901.
    Abstract:
    STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Intraoral scanners have significantly improved over the last decade. Nevertheless, data comparing intraoral digital scans with conventional impressions are sparse. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the impact of impression technique (digital scans versus conventional impressions) on the clinical time, patient comfort, and marginal fit of tooth-supported prostheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The authors conducted a literature search based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework in 3 databases to identify clinical trials with no language or date restrictions. The mean clinical time, patient comfort, and marginal fit values of each study were independently extracted by 2 review authors and categorized according to the scanning or impression method. The authors assessed the study-level risk of bias. RESULTS: A total of 16 clinical studies met the inclusion criteria. The mean clinical time was statistically similar for digital scan procedures (784 ±252 seconds) and for conventional impression methods (1125 ±159 seconds) (P>.05). The digital scan techniques were more comfortable for patients than conventional impressions; the mean visual analog scale score was 67.8 ±21.7 for digital scans and 39.6 ±9.3 for conventional impressions (P<.05). The mean marginal fit was 80.9 ±31.9 μm and 92.1 ±35.4 μm for digital scan and conventional impressions, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Digital scan techniques are comparable with conventional impressions in terms of clinical time and marginal fit but are more comfortable for patients than conventional impression techniques.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]