The aim of this review was to collect available evidence and evaluate accuracy outcomes of dental implant impression techniques, and to compare the accuracy of conventional implant impression versus digital implant impression. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined by the authors before the start of the study. The inclusion criteria were: all studies published in English language; studies no older than five years; analyzing the accuracy of digital vs conventional technique impression on implants. The exclusion criteria were: publications that reported the same data as later publications by the same authors and systematic reviews; commentaries and letters to the editor; case report and case series. The search resulted in 106 titles. Following the first stage of screening, after the records identification through database manual searching, 112 potentially relevant studies were identified. After the second stage screening, 33 full text publications were obtained and analyzed and 17 were excluded. Afterwards, 18 articles resulted eligible after full text reading and a cross search of the articles' references was accomplished; 3 articles were consequently added. At the end only 7 articles were included in the quantitative analysis. Within the limitations of this systematic review, digital impression on dental implants offers a comparable accuracy compared with conventional impressions technique. More clinical trials are recommended to investigate the accuracy of these scanners and their validity in clinical use.
Keywords: dental implant; digital dentistry; digital impression; implant impression; intraoral scanner; intraoral scanning.
Copyright 2020 Biolife Sas. www.biolifesas.org.