Comparative assessment of complete-coverage, fixed tooth-supported prostheses fabricated from digital scans or conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis - Inserm - Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale Accéder directement au contenu
Article Dans Une Revue Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Année : 2020

Comparative assessment of complete-coverage, fixed tooth-supported prostheses fabricated from digital scans or conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Résumé

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.
Fichier sous embargo
Fichier sous embargo
Date de visibilité indéterminée

Dates et versions

inserm-03021968 , version 1 (24-11-2020)

Identifiants

Citer

Octave Nadile Bandiaky, Pierre Le Bars, Alexis Gaudin, Jean Benoit Hardouin, Marjorie Cheraud-Carpentier, et al.. Comparative assessment of complete-coverage, fixed tooth-supported prostheses fabricated from digital scans or conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2020, S0022-3913 (20), pp.30498-4. ⟨10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.017⟩. ⟨inserm-03021968⟩
56 Consultations
3 Téléchargements

Altmetric

Partager

Gmail Facebook X LinkedIn More