IADR Abstract Archives
Accuracy of fit of Digital vs. Conventional Impression: Systematic Review
Objectives: Nowadays, intraoral scanners (IOS) are gaining popularity for the 3-dimensional capturing of abutments of tooth-supported prostetic restorations in place of conventional impression making. However, experimental data regarding adequate fit of digital impression-derived restorations remain limited. Aim of the present systematic review was to compare marginal and internal fit of dental prostheses manufactured either after digital vs. conventional impression making.
Methods: The review followed the guidelines of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). Pubmed and Scopus were searched by two independent reviewers, while a hand search was also conducted. Inclusion criteria were: in-vitro or clinical articles in English, published between 2010 and 2020, reporting on fixed prosthetic restorations.
Results: A total of 457 articles were collected, while 35 where finally included in the review. The publications presented heterogeneity regarding sample size, span length, restorative material, manufacturing step in which digitization was applied, or type of IOS. 22 articles were in vitro- and 13 clinical studies. Restorative materials included zirconia, lithium-disilicate, and alloys (all types). The majority of studies referred to restorations of four untis or less. In the alloy group, 4 studies supported superior fit of digitally-fabricated restorations, two studies showed no significant difference, and one a larger marginal gap for digital techniques. Regarding lithium-disilicate restorations, 3 studies supported superior fit of digital manufacturing, 5 studies reported no significant difference, while one supported superiority of conventional impression. For zirconia restorations, the majority of studies (8) supported better fit of fully digital manufacturing, 7 articles showed no significant difference, whereas in one study conventional techniques resulted in superior fit.
Conclusions: Digital manufacturing of dental prostheses appears to have reached clinically acceptable limits. Especially for zirconia restorations, the application of a fully digital workflow seems to be already incorporated in every-day clinical practice.
Methods: The review followed the guidelines of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). Pubmed and Scopus were searched by two independent reviewers, while a hand search was also conducted. Inclusion criteria were: in-vitro or clinical articles in English, published between 2010 and 2020, reporting on fixed prosthetic restorations.
Results: A total of 457 articles were collected, while 35 where finally included in the review. The publications presented heterogeneity regarding sample size, span length, restorative material, manufacturing step in which digitization was applied, or type of IOS. 22 articles were in vitro- and 13 clinical studies. Restorative materials included zirconia, lithium-disilicate, and alloys (all types). The majority of studies referred to restorations of four untis or less. In the alloy group, 4 studies supported superior fit of digitally-fabricated restorations, two studies showed no significant difference, and one a larger marginal gap for digital techniques. Regarding lithium-disilicate restorations, 3 studies supported superior fit of digital manufacturing, 5 studies reported no significant difference, while one supported superiority of conventional impression. For zirconia restorations, the majority of studies (8) supported better fit of fully digital manufacturing, 7 articles showed no significant difference, whereas in one study conventional techniques resulted in superior fit.
Conclusions: Digital manufacturing of dental prostheses appears to have reached clinically acceptable limits. Especially for zirconia restorations, the application of a fully digital workflow seems to be already incorporated in every-day clinical practice.