SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2024
The accuracy of conventional versus digital (intraoral scanner or photogrammetry) impression techniques in full-arch implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Dimensional accuracy of dental impression materials evaluated using a standardized CAD based method across materials tray types and techniques.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Material-dependent trueness of intraoral scanners: A comparative analysis of three scanning technologies for different crowns - An in vitro study.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society · 2026Article
- Cumulative Error in Digital Workflows for Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation: A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Effect of implant depth on accuracy: a comparative study using intraoral scanner and photogrammetry systems.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2026Article
- Marginal and internal fit accuracy of single-crown restorations: the impact of digital and conventional impression techniques.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Effect of implant angulation on the trueness and precision of intraoral scanning and photogrammetry.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Influence of camera position, implant angulation and implant reference on the accuracy of complete arch implant recordings with photogrammetry.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2025Article
- Effects of inter-implant tooth loss and scan body material on digital impression accuracy: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Advances and Challenges in the Integration of Digital Technologies in Complete Dentures: A Narrative Literature Review.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
- A Novel Intraoral Optical Scan-Transfer Device for Full-Arch Implant Reconstruction.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Comparison of the Clinical Evaluation of Digital Tooth Shade Determination Using an Intraoral Scanner with Proven Subjective and Objective Methods.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review aimed to compare the accuracy of conventional impression techniques with digital methods, including intraoral scanners or photogrammetry, in full-arch implant-supported prostheses. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn electronic search of the MEDLINE (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane) databases was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review included in vitro studies published between January 2000 to January 2024 that compared the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impression techniques. Descriptive analyses were performed using the data extracted from each study.
resultsTwenty-three in vitro studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, eighteen utilized intraoral scanners and five employed photogrammetry. Twelve studies concluded that digital techniques were more accurate than conventional methods, six found conventional techniques to be more accurate, and five reported comparable accuracy between the two methods.
conclusionsWithin limitation of the included studies, digital implant impression technique were generally more accurate than conventional methods for full-arch implant-supported prostheses. This review suggests that future research should use perform standardized methodologies and report consistent accuracy outcomes to enable the inclusion of more studies in a meta-analysis.
trial registrationThe study was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023397916).
Indexed as
Identifiers
39134687What 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.