SynthesisInternational journal of implant dentistry2023
Accuracy of digital implant impressions obtained using intraoral scanners: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo studies.
Synthesis in International journal of implant dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computer-aided design of anterior guidance with a modified patient-specific motion technique in anterior implant-supported single crowns: A multicenter crossover trial.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026Trial
- Effect of immediate provisionalization using natural crowns with fiber splints on gingival contour and esthetic outcomes after immediate implant placement: a randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Influence of arch form on the accuracy of digital workflow in all-on-four implant rehabilitation cases (an in vitro study).BMC oral health · 2026Article
- In Vivo Complete Arch Implant Impressions: Comparison of the Linear Precision of Digital and Conventional Techniques.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Impact of dentition alignment, scanning strategy and operator experience on the accuracy and time of intraoral scanning: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Accuracy of the Emergence Profile of Dental Implant Restorations using different gingival mask techniques.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Oral health status and associated factors among rural older adults in China using a 3D intraoral scanner: a population-based cross-sectional study in four provinces.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Conventional and Digital Workflow Impressions for Implant-Supported Restorations.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- A Preliminary Randomized Trial on the Efficiency and Clinical Value of a Cementless Screw-Retained Implant Workflow in Single-Implant Restorations.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Review
- The Effects of Scan Body Geometry on the Precision and the Trueness of Implant Impressions Using Intraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- A Novel Intraoral Optical Scan-Transfer Device for Full-Arch Implant Reconstruction.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- A Retrospective Cohort Study on Scan Quality of Implant Scanbodies Matched With CAD Libraries.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2025Article
- Accuracy of intraoral scanners for full-arch implant scanning in the Maxilla using horizontal scanbody.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Accuracy of Full-Arch Intraoral Scans Versus Conventional Impression: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis and a Proposal to Standardise the Analysis of the Accuracy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis systematic review aimed to investigate the accuracy of intraoral scan (IOS) impressions of implant-supported restorations in in vivo studies.
methodsA systematic electronic search and review of studies on the accuracy of IOS implant impressions were conducted to analyze the peer-reviewed literature published between 1989 and August 2023. The bias analysis was performed by two reviewers. Data on the study characteristics, accuracy outcomes, and related variables were extracted. A meta-analysis of randomized control trials was performed to investigate the impact of IOS on peri-implant crestal bone loss and the time involved in the impression procedure.
resultsTen in vivo studies were included in this systematic review for final analysis. Six studies investigated the trueness of IOS impressions, but did not reach the same conclusions. One study assessed the precision of IOS impressions for a single implant. Four clinical studies examined the accuracy of IOS implant impressions with a follow-up of 1-2 years. In full arches, IOS impression procedure needed significantly less time than conventional one (mean difference for procedure time was 8.59 min [6.78, 10.40 min], P < 0.001), prosthetic survival rate was 100%, and marginal bone levels of all participants could be stably maintained (mean difference in marginal bone loss at 12 months was 0.03 mm [-0.08, 0.14 mm], P = 0.55).
conclusionsThe accuracy of IOS impressions of implant-supported restorations varied greatly depending on the scanning strategy. The trueness and precision of IOS in the partial and complete arches remain unclear and require further assessment. Based on follow-up clinical studies, IOS impressions were accurate in clinical practice. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, as some evidences are obtained from the same research group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.