Mahat Nur Safiani, Shetty Naresh Yedthare, Kohli Shivani, Jamayet Nafij Bin, Patil Pravinkumar
School of Dentistry, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Associate Professor, Department of Clinical Sciences, Ajman University, Ajman, UAE.
Evid Based Dent. 2023 Sep;24(3):142. doi: 10.1038/s41432-023-00904-5. Epub 2023 Jun 27.
To analyze the clinical outcomes of implant-supported prostheses and tooth-supported fixed prostheses, fabricated from digital and conventional impression.
The literature search was carried out on two electronic databases (PubMed and Cochrane Library). Randomized controlled trials (RCT) published from January 2011 to September 2022 were included. The bias risk was evaluated using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Further screening was done for meta-analysis according to modified Newcastle-Ottawa scoring criteria. Forest plot was generated using a statistical method of inverse variance of random effect with 95% confidence interval.
A total of 8 randomized controlled trials were included for systematic review out of which four studies were based on tooth-supported fixed prosthesis and remaining four were based on implant-supported prosthesis. Further screening was conducted and three studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Tooth-supported fixed prosthesis fabricated from digital impression showed no significant difference in the marginal fit in any region measured, except for occlusal region where conventional impression showed more favorable marginal fit. Implant-supported prosthesis fabricated from digital impression showed survival rates ranging from 97.3 to 100% and there was no statistically significant difference in marginal bone loss (p = 0.14).
Implant-supported prostheses fabricated from digital and conventional impressions show no significant differences in their clinical outcomes. Tooth-supported fixed prostheses fabricated from digital impression have shown favorable findings in terms of marginal fit. Despite that, there is still lack of clinical trials with larger sample size and longer follow-up periods. Future studies that fulfill these two criteria are deemed necessary.
分析由数字印模和传统印模制作的种植体支持修复体和牙支持固定修复体的临床效果。
在两个电子数据库（PubMed和Cochrane图书馆）中进行文献检索。纳入2011年1月至2022年9月发表的随机对照试验（RCT）。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具2.0评估偏倚风险。根据改良的纽卡斯尔-渥太华评分标准进行进一步筛选以进行荟萃分析。采用随机效应逆方差统计方法生成森林图，置信区间为95%。
共纳入8项随机对照试验进行系统评价，其中4项研究基于牙支持固定修复体，其余4项基于种植体支持修复体。进一步筛选后，3项研究符合荟萃分析条件。由数字印模制作的牙支持固定修复体在测量的任何区域的边缘适合性方面均无显著差异，但在咬合区域，传统印模显示出更有利的边缘适合性。由数字印模制作的种植体支持修复体的生存率在97.3%至100%之间，边缘骨丢失无统计学显著差异（p = 0.14）。
由数字印模和传统印模制作的种植体支持修复体在临床效果上无显著差异。由数字印模制作的牙支持固定修复体在边缘适合性方面显示出良好的结果。尽管如此，仍缺乏大样本量和长期随访期的临床试验。认为有必要进行满足这两个标准的未来研究。
