The State Key Laboratory Breeding Base of Basic Science of Stomatology (Hubei-MOST) & Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Department of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Luoyu Road 237, Hongshan District, Wuhan, 430079, China.
Clin Oral Investig. 2022 Sep;26(9):5625-5642. doi: 10.1007/s00784-022-04607-6. Epub 2022 Jul 4.
The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the accuracy of digital and conventional full-arch impressions in vivo.
This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA and registered at the PROSPERO (CRD42021232736). Electronic and hand searches were performed to identify in vivo studies comparing the linear or 3D accuracy of digital and conventional impressions. The risk of bias (ROB) of included studies was assessed by QUADAS-2, and the overall quality of evidence was assessed by GRADE.
Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria, and 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between digital and conventional impressions in the linear measurements of tooth width, anterior Bolton ratio, overall Bolton ratio, intercanine distance (ICD), and intermolar distance (IMD). The repeated measurement mean errors (RMEs) were less than 0.1 mm, the intra-examiner intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values were more than 0.9, and the inter-examiner ICC values were more than 0.87 for both impression techniques. The 3D deviation between digital and alginate impressions was 0.09 mm. The 3D precision of both impression techniques was less than 0.1 mm.
The trueness of digital and alginate full-arch impressions was similar, and both impression techniques showed high precision. More research was needed to compare digital impressions and other conventional impression materials.
For patients with completely natural dentition, the digital impressions obtained directly from intraoral scanning can be considered a viable alternative to alginate impressions.
本系统评价的目的是比较数字化和传统全口印模的体内准确性。
本系统评价按照 PRISMA 进行，并在 PROSPERO（CRD42021232736）注册。电子和手工搜索旨在确定比较数字化和传统印模线性或 3D 准确性的体内研究。通过 QUADAS-2 评估纳入研究的偏倚风险（ROB），并通过 GRADE 评估总体证据质量。
22 项研究符合纳入标准，13 项研究纳入荟萃分析。数字化和传统印模在牙宽、前 Bolton 比、总 Bolton 比、犬间距离（ICD）和颌间距离（IMD）的线性测量方面无显著差异。重复测量平均误差（RME）小于 0.1mm，两次检查的内部分类相关系数（ICC）值均大于 0.9，两次检查的 ICC 值均大于 0.87。数字化和藻酸盐印模之间的 3D 偏差为 0.09mm。两种印模技术的 3D 精度均小于 0.1mm。
数字化和藻酸盐全口印模的准确性相似，两种印模技术均具有较高的精度。需要进一步研究来比较数字化印模和其他传统印模材料。
对于完全天然牙列的患者，直接从口腔内扫描获得的数字化印模可以被认为是藻酸盐印模的可行替代方案。
