Department of Implant Dentistry, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology & Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China.
Department of Stomatology, Affiliated Hospital of Jiangnan University, Wuxi, China.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2024 Oct;26(5):847-861. doi: 10.1111/cid.13321. Epub 2024 Mar 22.
The present study aimed to systematically review the studies comparing the accuracy of intraoral scan (IOS) and conventional implant impressions (CI) in completely edentulous patients.
Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL up to December 1, 2023. Clinical studies and in vitro studies reporting the accuracy of digital full arch impressions were included. The primary outcome is the 3-dimensional deviations between the study reference models. A risk of bias assessment was performed for clinical studies. A stratified meta-analysis and a single-armed meta-analysis were conducted.
A total of 49 studies were included, with 8 clinical studies and 41 in vitro studies. For comparison between IOS and conventional impressions, studies were categorized into two groups based on the different measurement methods employed: RMS and CMM. In studies using RMS, the result favored the IOS in the unparalleled situation with the mean difference of -99.29 μm (95% CI: [-141.38, -57.19], I = 81%), while the result was opposite with the mean difference of 13.62 μm (95% CI: [10.97, 16.28], I = 26%) when implants were paralleled. For different brands of IOS, the accuracy ranged from 76.11 μm (95% CI: [42.36, 109.86]) to 158.63 μm (95% CI: [-14.68, 331.93]).
Accuracy of intraoral scan is clinically acceptable in edentulous arches, especially for unparalleled implants. More clinical studies are needed to verify the present finding.
本研究旨在系统地回顾比较口内扫描(IOS)和传统种植体印模(CI)在完全无牙患者中准确性的研究。
截至 2023 年 12 月 1 日,我们在 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane CENTRAL 中进行了电子检索。纳入了报告数字化全牙弓印模准确性的临床研究和体外研究。主要结局为研究参考模型之间的三维偏差。对临床研究进行了偏倚风险评估。进行了分层荟萃分析和单臂荟萃分析。
共纳入 49 项研究,其中 8 项为临床研究,41 项为体外研究。对于 IOS 和传统印模的比较,根据采用的不同测量方法将研究分为两组:RMS 和 CMM。在使用 RMS 的研究中,在无可比性的情况下,IOS 的结果更优,平均差值为-99.29μm(95%CI:[-141.38,-57.19],I=81%),而当种植体平行时,结果则相反,平均差值为 13.62μm(95%CI:[10.97,16.28],I=26%)。对于不同品牌的 IOS,准确性范围从 76.11μm(95%CI:[42.36,109.86])到 158.63μm(95%CI:[-14.68,331.93])。
在无牙弓中,IOS 的准确性具有临床可接受性,特别是对于无可比性的种植体。需要更多的临床研究来验证目前的发现。