Bandiaky Octave Nadile, Le Bars Pierre, Gaudin Alexis, Hardouin Jean Benoit, Cheraud-Carpentier Marjorie, Mbodj Elhadj Babacar, Soueidan Assem
Graduate student, Graduate Prosthodontics, Department of Odontology, University of Dakar, Dakar, Senegal.
Associate Professor, Division of Fixed Prosthodontics, CHU Nantes, Nantes, France.
J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Jan;127(1):71-79. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.017. Epub 2020 Nov 2.
Intraoral scanners have significantly improved over the last decade. Nevertheless, data comparing intraoral digital scans with conventional impressions are sparse.
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.
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.
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).
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.
在过去十年中，口腔内扫描仪有了显著改进。然而，将口腔内数字扫描与传统印模进行比较的数据却很少。
本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是确定印模技术（数字扫描与传统印模）对牙支持修复体的临床时间、患者舒适度和边缘适合性的影响。
作者基于人群、干预、对照和结局（PICO）框架在3个数据库中进行文献检索，以识别无语言或日期限制的临床试验。每项研究的平均临床时间、患者舒适度和边缘适合性值由2位综述作者独立提取，并根据扫描或印模方法进行分类。作者评估了研究水平的偏倚风险。
共有16项临床研究符合纳入标准。数字扫描程序（784±252秒）和传统印模方法（1125±159秒）的平均临床时间在统计学上相似（P>0.05）。数字扫描技术比传统印模让患者感觉更舒适；数字扫描的平均视觉模拟量表评分为67.8±21.7，传统印模为39.6±9.3（P<0.05）。数字扫描和传统印模的平均边缘适合性分别为80.9±31.9μm和92.1±35.4μm，无统计学显著差异（P>0.05）。
数字扫描技术在临床时间和边缘适合性方面与传统印模相当，但比传统印模技术让患者感觉更舒适。
