Intraoral Scan Accuracy and Time Efficiency in Implant-Supported Fixed Partial Dentures: A Systematic Review.

Autor:	Pullishery F; Community Dentistry and Research, Batterjee Medical College, Jeddah, SAU., Huraib W; Fixed Prosthodontics, Dentistry Program, Batterjee Medical College, Jeddah, SAU., Alruhaymi AS; General Dentistry, Ministry of Health, North Obhur, Jeddah, SAU., Alharandah WA; General Dentistry, Ministry of Health, North Obhur, Jeddah, SAU., AlDara EW; General Dentistry, Ministry of Health, Almurjan, Jeddah, SAU., Benten MM; General Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, SAU., Alassaf DM; General Dentistry, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Riyadh, SAU., Babatin WMA; General Dentistry, Dentistry Program, Batterjee Medical College, Jeddah, SAU., Mohsen NMM; General Dentistry, Self Experts Center, Jeddah, SAU.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Cureus [Cureus] 2023 Oct 31; Vol. 15 (10), pp. e48027. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Oct 31 (Print Publication: 2023).
DOI:	10.7759/cureus.48027
Abstrakt:	The digital implant impression technique (DIT) and conventional implant impression technique (CIT) workflows in implant-supported fixed partial dentures (FPDs) have not been extensively compared in prior studies. Moreover, there is no agreement on the more accurate method that entails less time in the laboratory and during the clinical phases of fabrication and delivery of the prosthesis, respectively. This review aimed to assess the precision of the imaging procedure and overall fabrication time of the DIT and CIT for the implant-supported FPDs. An electronic search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Oral Health Group, and Dentistry and Oral Science Source databases through EBSCO for relevant studies from January 2014 to April 2023. Following the preliminary screening, the studies that met the inclusion criteria underwent full-text review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias appraisal tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were applied to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized prospective clinical studies, respectively. The initial search yielded 332 studies, and after excluding duplicates, 241 papers were available for screening. Titles and abstracts were reviewed, and 97 articles were chosen for full-text review by two authors independently. Furthermore, 89 articles were excluded in compliance with the PICOS question, and eight studies were chosen for qualitative analysis. Hence, the review comprised two RCTs and six prospective clinical studies. The time efficiency of the implant-supported FPDs was examined in four investigations, three of which used the Trios 3 scanner and one used the Intero scanner. The three-dimensional accuracy of DIT and CIT was compared in six clinical comparative studies. One of the RCTs was rated to have a high risk of bias and the other with a moderate quality of evidence. The six prospective studies were rated to have high-quality of evidence. The findings of this review indicate the prospective applicability of future intraoral scanning systems. The DIT was reported to be outstanding in terms of patient preferences and total fabrication time efficiency. Additional in vivo studies are needed to establish the therapeutic usefulness and time efficiency of integrating DIT in more comprehensive settings. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. (Copyright © 2023, Pullishery et al.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu