Clinical outcomes of digital scans versus conventional impressions for implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

With the growing use of digital scanning, an evaluation of the clinical impact of digital scans versus conventional impressions in complete arch implant-supported prostheses is needed. However, systematic reviews on this subject are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the scanning and impression times and the radiographic marginal bone loss over time associated with digital scans and conventional impressions for complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing digital scans and conventional impressions for complete arch prostheses were included in the review. The scan and impression times and marginal bone loss were analyzed through random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included. The meta-analysis was conducted by using a standardized mean difference (MD) and indicated a statistically significant reduction in time for the digital scan group compared with the conventional group (MD 10.01 [7.46, 12.55], P<.001, I²=80%). The fact that digital scans were used did not lead to significant differences in radiographic marginal bone loss compared with conventional impressions after 6 months (MD -0.03 [-0.14, 0.08], P=.58, I²=0%), after 12 months (MD -0.06 [-0.24, 0.12], P=.12, I²=45%), and after 24 months (MD -0.12 [-0.32, 0.09], P=.28, I²=58%).

CONCLUSIONS

Digital scans significantly reduced the time required compared with conventional impressions for complete arch implant-supported prostheses. Nevertheless, additional studies with more consistent methodologies are needed for confirmation. No significant differences were found in radiographic marginal bone loss between treatments performed with digital scans and conventional impressions.