Reis Isabella Neme Ribeiro Dos, Chamma-Wedemann Camila Nogueira, Silva Ian Artoni de Oliveira, Spin-Neto Rubens, Sesma Newton, da Silva Emily Vivianne Freitas
Postgraduate student, Department of Stomatology, Division of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil.
Postgraduate student, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil.
J Prosthet Dent. 2025 Aug;134(2):346-355. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.09.023. Epub 2023 Oct 19.
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.
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.
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.
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%).
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.
随着数字扫描技术的使用日益增加，有必要评估在全牙弓种植体支持的修复体中，数字扫描与传统印模相比的临床影响。然而，缺乏关于该主题的系统评价。
本系统评价的目的是评估全牙弓种植体支持的固定修复体中，与数字扫描和传统印模相关的扫描和印模时间，以及随时间推移的影像学边缘骨丢失情况。
检索了MEDLINE/PubMed、SCOPUS、EMBASE和科学网。本评价仅纳入了比较全牙弓修复体数字扫描和传统印模的随机临床试验（RCT）。通过随机效应荟萃分析对扫描和印模时间以及边缘骨丢失进行分析。
纳入了6项RCT。使用标准化均数差（MD）进行荟萃分析，结果表明数字扫描组与传统组相比，时间有统计学显著缩短（MD 10.01 [7.46, 12.55]，P<.001，I²=80%）。与传统印模相比，在6个月后（MD -0.03 [-0.14, 0.08]，P=.58，I²=0%）、12个月后（MD -0.06 [-0.24, 0.12]，P=.12，I²=45%）和24个月后（MD -0.12 [-0.32, 0.09]，P=.28，I²=58%），使用数字扫描并未导致影像学边缘骨丢失出现显著差异。
与全牙弓种植体支持的修复体的传统印模相比，数字扫描显著缩短了所需时间。尽管如此，仍需要更多方法更一致的研究来进行证实。数字扫描和传统印模治疗之间在影像学边缘骨丢失方面未发现显著差异。
