Literature DB >> 26946916

Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Konstantinos M Chochlidakis1, Panos Papaspyridakos2, Alessandro Geminiani3, Chun-Jung Chen4, I Jung Feng5, Carlo Ercoli6.   

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Limited evidence is available for the marginal and internal fit of fixed dental restorations fabricated with digital impressions compared with those fabricated with conventional impressions.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to compare marginal and internal fit of fixed dental restorations fabricated with digital techniques to those fabricated using conventional impression techniques and to determine the effect of different variables on the accuracy of fit.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Medline, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were electronically searched and enriched by hand searches. Studies evaluating the fit of fixed dental restorations fabricated with digital and conventional impression techniques were identified. Pooled data were statistically analyzed, and factors affecting the accuracy of fit were identified, and their impact on accuracy of fit outcomes were assessed.
RESULTS: Dental restorations fabricated with digital impression techniques exhibited similar marginal misfit to those fabricated with conventional impression techniques (P>.05). Both marginal and internal discrepancies were greater for stone die casts, whereas digital dies produced restorations with the smallest discrepancies (P<.05). When a digital impression was used to generate stereolithographic (SLA)/polyurethane dies, misfit values were intermediate. The fabrication technique, the type of restoration, and the impression material had no effect on misfit values (P>.05), whereas die and restoration materials were statistically associated (P<.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Although conclusions were based mainly on in vitro studies, the digital impression technique provided better marginal and internal fit of fixed restorations than conventional techniques did.
Copyright © 2016 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26946916     DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Prosthet Dent        ISSN: 0022-3913            Impact factor:   3.426


  30 in total

1.  Restorative CAD/CAM materials in dentistry: analysis of their fluorescence properties and the applicability of the fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT).

Authors:  Christian Klein; Matthias Krespach; Sebastian Spintzyk; Diana Wolff; Christiane von Ohle; Christian Meller
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-01-14       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  An In-vitro Comparative Stereomicroscopic Analysis and Evaluation of Marginal Accuracy in Porcelain Fused to Metal Copings Fabricated in Two Different Finish Lines Using Variant Die Materials.

Authors:  Priya L Vaswani; Pronob K Sanyal; Siddharth Y Gosavi; Abhijeet R Kore
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2017-01-01

3.  Effect of the presence of orthodontic brackets on intraoral scans.

Authors:  Sung-Ja Kang; Youn-Ju Kee; Kyungmin Clara Lee
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  Clinical acceptance of single-unit crowns and its association with impression and tissue displacement techniques: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Authors:  Nathaniel C Lawson; Mark S Litaker; Ellen Sowell; Valeria V Gordan; Rahma Mungia; Kenneth R Ronzo; Ba T Lam; Gregg H Gilbert; Michael S McCracken
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2019-10-04       Impact factor: 3.426

5.  Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: A clinical study using a reference appliance.

Authors:  Mohammad A Atieh; André V Ritter; Ching-Chang Ko; Ibrahim Duqum
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2017-02-17       Impact factor: 3.426

Review 6.  Digital versus conventional full-arch impressions in linear and 3D accuracy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo studies.

Authors:  Lin Kong; Yabing Li; Zhijian Liu
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 3.606

7.  Digital and conventional impressions have similar working times.

Authors:  Victoria Cave; William Keys
Journal:  Evid Based Dent       Date:  2018-10

8.  Influence of Scanning-Aid Materials on the Accuracy and Time Efficiency of Intraoral Scanners for Full-Arch Digital Scanning: An In Vitro Study.

Authors:  Hyun-Su Oh; Young-Jun Lim; Bongju Kim; Myung-Joo Kim; Ho-Beom Kwon; Yeon-Wha Baek
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 3.623

9.  Accuracy of a separating foil impression using a novel polyolefin foil compared to a custom tray and a stock tray technique.

Authors:  Marie-Hélène Pastoret; Gabriel Krastl; Julia Bühler; Roland Weiger; Nicola Ursula Zitzmann
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 1.904

Review 10.  Trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by intraoral scanners: a literature review.

Authors:  Minoru Sanda; Keita Miyoshi; Kazuyoshi Baba
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2021-07-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.