Literature DB >> 27266879

Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review.

Mônica L C Aragón1, Luana F Pontes1, Lívia M Bichara1, Carlos Flores-Mir2, David Normando3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The development of 3D technology and the trend of increasing the use of intraoral scanners in dental office routine lead to the need for comparisons with conventional techniques.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if intra- and inter-arch measurements from digital dental models acquired by an intraoral scanner are as reliable and valid as the similar measurements achieved from dental models obtained through conventional intraoral impressions. SEARCH
METHODS: An unrestricted electronic search of seven databases until February 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies that focused on the accuracy and reliability of images obtained from intraoral scanners compared to images obtained from conventional impressions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: After study selection the QUADAS risk of bias assessment tool for diagnostic studies was used to assess the risk of bias (RoB) among the included studies.
RESULTS: Four articles were included in the qualitative synthesis. The scanners evaluated were OrthoProof, Lava, iOC intraoral, Lava COS, iTero and D250. These studies evaluated the reliability of tooth widths, Bolton ratio measurements, and image superimposition. Two studies were classified as having low RoB; one had moderate RoB and the remaining one had high RoB. Only one study evaluated the time required to complete clinical procedures and patient's opinion about the procedure. Patients reported feeling more comfortable with the conventional dental impression method. LIMITATIONS: Associated costs were not considered in any of the included study. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Inter- and intra-arch measurements from digital models produced from intraoral scans appeared to be reliable and accurate in comparison to those from conventional impressions. This assessment only applies to the intraoral scanners models considered in the finally included studies. Digital models produced by intraoral scan eliminate the need of impressions materials; however, currently, longer time is needed to take the digital images. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42014009702). FUNDING: None.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27266879     DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjw033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthod        ISSN: 0141-5387            Impact factor:   3.075


  27 in total

1.  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

2.  Evidence for use of intraoral scanners under clinical conditions for obtaining full-arch digital impressions is insufficient.

Authors:  Hadil Khraishi; Brett Duane
Journal:  Evid Based Dent       Date:  2017-03

3.  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

4.  A comparison of patient experience, chair-side time, accuracy of dental arch measurements and costs of acquisition of dental models.

Authors:  Olja Glisic; Louise Hoejbjerre; Liselotte Sonnesen
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  Comparison and reproducibility of three methods for maxillary digital dental model registration in open bite patients.

Authors:  Aron Aliaga-Del Castillo; Lorena Vilanova; Guilherme Janson; Luis Ernesto Arriola-Guillén; Daniela Garib; Felicia Miranda; Camila Massaro; Marilia Yatabe; Lucia Cevidanes; Antonio Carlos Ruellas
Journal:  Orthod Craniofac Res       Date:  2021-09-30       Impact factor: 2.563

6.  The transfer accuracy of digital and conventional full-arch impressions influenced by fixed orthodontic appliances: a reference aid-based in vitro study.

Authors:  Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz; Katharina Klaus; Alexander Schmidt; Bernd Wöstmann; Marco Mersmann; Sabine Ruf; Niko Christian Bock
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2022-09-15       Impact factor: 3.606

7.  Full Digital Workflow in the Esthetic Dental Restoration.

Authors:  Suchada Kongkiatkamon; Dinesh Rokaya
Journal:  Case Rep Dent       Date:  2022-06-18

Review 8.  Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature.

Authors:  Francesco Mangano; Andrea Gandolfi; Giuseppe Luongo; Silvia Logozzo
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 2.757

9.  Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study.

Authors:  Francesco G Mangano; Giovanni Veronesi; Uli Hauschild; Eitan Mijiritsky; Carlo Mangano
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Quantitative measures of gingival recession and the influence of gender, race, and attrition.

Authors:  Chester S Handelman; Anthony P Eltink; Ellen BeGole
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 2.750

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.