Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies.
Albanchez-González, María Isabel; Brinkmann, Jorge Cortés-Bretón; Peláez-Rico, Jesús; López-Suárez, Carlos; Rodríguez-Alonso, Verónica; Suárez-García, María Jesús.
Afiliación
  • Albanchez-González MI; Department of Conservative Dentistry and Orofacial Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
  • Brinkmann JC; Department of Dental Clinical Specialties, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
  • Peláez-Rico J; Department of Conservative Dentistry and Orofacial Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
  • López-Suárez C; Department of Conservative Dentistry and Orofacial Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
  • Rodríguez-Alonso V; Department of Conservative Dentistry and Orofacial Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
  • Suárez-García MJ; Department of Conservative Dentistry and Orofacial Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35206217
ABSTRACT
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the in vitro accuracy of dental implants impressions taken with intraoral scanner compared with impressions taken with conventional techniques. Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic electronic search in the PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases. Some of the employed key terms, combined with the help of Boolean operators, were "dental implants", "impression accuracy", "digital impression" and "conventional impression". Publication dates ranged from the earliest article available until 31 July 2021. A total of 26 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria 14 studies simulated complete edentation (CE), nine partial edentation (PE) and only two simulated a single implant (SI); One study simulated both CE and SI. In cases of PE and SI, most of the studies analyzed found greater accuracy with conventional impression (CI), although digital impression (DI) was also considered adequate. For CE the findings were inconclusive as six studies found greater accuracy with DI, five found better accuracy with CI and four found no differences. According to the results of this systematic review, DI is a valid alternative to CI for implants in PE and SI, although CI appear to be more accurate. For CE the findings were inconclusive, so more studies are needed before DI can be recommended for all implant-supported restorations.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Implantes Dentales / Modelos Dentales Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Int J Environ Res Public Health Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: España

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Implantes Dentales / Modelos Dentales Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Int J Environ Res Public Health Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: España
...