Validation of Digital Impressions' Accuracy Obtained Using Intraoral and Extraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review.
accuracy
extraoral scanners
intraoral scanners
precision
trueness
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Sep 2023
08 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
15
08
2023
revised:
28
08
2023
accepted:
30
08
2023
medline:
28
9
2023
pubmed:
28
9
2023
entrez:
28
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
At present, the evidence regarding digital impressions' accuracy recorded by using digital scanners is lacking. This systematic review aimed to evaluate whether the type of scanning (intraoral/extraoral) affects the Accuracy of Digital Impressions. Two independent reviewers performed a systematic search in the database both electronically and manually (PubMed, Ebsco HOST, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) for articles published from 1 January 2010 to 1 December 2022. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42020188765) and followed the PRISMA statement. The question in focus was as follows: Does the type of scanning (intraoral or extraoral) affect the accuracy of digital impression? A total of 449 papers were obtained by searching electronically and manually. In total, 15 complete-text papers qualified for assessment based on eligibility criteria. After reading the full-text articles, five studies were excluded. Ten studies were selected for the qualitative analysis. The qualitative data reported that the accuracy of both types of scanners (intraoral and extraoral) lies within the range of clinical acceptability. Nevertheless, the intraoral scanners seem to be more accurate when compared to the extraoral scanners for a partial arch situation. Scanning type affects the accuracy of the digital impression. Various factors influence the scanning ability. Intraoral scanners seem to be more accurate compared to extraoral scanners for a partial arch situation. More studies comparing the accuracy of the intraoral scanner and extraoral scanner for a complete arch scan and in an in vivo study setting are needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
At present, the evidence regarding digital impressions' accuracy recorded by using digital scanners is lacking. This systematic review aimed to evaluate whether the type of scanning (intraoral/extraoral) affects the Accuracy of Digital Impressions.
METHOD
METHODS
Two independent reviewers performed a systematic search in the database both electronically and manually (PubMed, Ebsco HOST, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) for articles published from 1 January 2010 to 1 December 2022. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42020188765) and followed the PRISMA statement. The question in focus was as follows: Does the type of scanning (intraoral or extraoral) affect the accuracy of digital impression?
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 449 papers were obtained by searching electronically and manually. In total, 15 complete-text papers qualified for assessment based on eligibility criteria. After reading the full-text articles, five studies were excluded. Ten studies were selected for the qualitative analysis. The qualitative data reported that the accuracy of both types of scanners (intraoral and extraoral) lies within the range of clinical acceptability. Nevertheless, the intraoral scanners seem to be more accurate when compared to the extraoral scanners for a partial arch situation.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Scanning type affects the accuracy of the digital impression. Various factors influence the scanning ability. Intraoral scanners seem to be more accurate compared to extraoral scanners for a partial arch situation. More studies comparing the accuracy of the intraoral scanner and extraoral scanner for a complete arch scan and in an in vivo study setting are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37762774
pii: jcm12185833
doi: 10.3390/jcm12185833
pmc: PMC10532392
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : King Khalid University
ID : RGP.1/12/44
Références
Quintessence Int. 2017;48(1):41-50
pubmed: 27834416
Technol Health Care. 2021;29(6):1161-1171
pubmed: 33998567
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100
pubmed: 19621070
J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Sep;116(3):328-335.e2
pubmed: 27061627
Materials (Basel). 2019 Jun 18;12(12):
pubmed: 31216639
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018 Apr-Jun;18(2):108-116
pubmed: 29692563
J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Feb;125(2):294-299
pubmed: 32115221
J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Jan;117(1):93-101
pubmed: 27460324
J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Jul;126(1):110-114
pubmed: 32665118
Dent Mater J. 2017 Jul 26;36(4):402-407
pubmed: 28302948
J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Aug;116(2):184-190.e12
pubmed: 26946916
J Appl Oral Sci. 2016 Jan-Feb;24(1):85-94
pubmed: 27008261
Int J Comput Dent. 2011;14(1):11-21
pubmed: 21657122
Int J Comput Dent. 2017;20(2):151-164
pubmed: 28630956
ANZ J Surg. 2003 Sep;73(9):712-6
pubmed: 12956787
Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2007 May-Jun;15(3):508-11
pubmed: 17653438
Open Med. 2009;3(3):e123-30
pubmed: 21603045
Prim Dent J. 2018 Summer;7(2):40-3
pubmed: 30095881
Dent J (Basel). 2023 Jan 12;11(1):
pubmed: 36661564
Clin Oral Investig. 2020 Feb;24(2):735-745
pubmed: 31134345
Int J Comput Dent. 2005 Oct;8(4):283-94
pubmed: 16689029
J Am Dent Assoc. 2013 Aug;144(8):914-20
pubmed: 23904578
Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Sep;20(7):1495-504
pubmed: 26547869
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Sep;144(3):471-8
pubmed: 23992820
J Prosthodont Res. 2017 Apr;61(2):177-184
pubmed: 27461088
J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Feb 23;:
pubmed: 36841708
Technol Health Care. 2021;29(4):797-811
pubmed: 33749624
J Prosthodont Res. 2015 Oct;59(4):236-42
pubmed: 26211702
J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Feb;109(2):121-8
pubmed: 23395338
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018 Aug 30;26(3):101-121
pubmed: 29989757
J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Jun;125(6):924-931
pubmed: 32487348
Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Sep;20(7):1487-94
pubmed: 26454734
Int J Comput Dent. 2009;12(1):11-28
pubmed: 19213357
Oral Health Prev Dent. 2021 Jan 7;19(1):353-363
pubmed: 34259428
Clin Oral Investig. 2013 May;17(4):1201-8
pubmed: 22847854
Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Mar;20(2):283-9
pubmed: 26121970
Int J Dent. 2017;2017:3268064
pubmed: 28951740
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jan 27;18(3):
pubmed: 33513981
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Jan;24(1):111-5
pubmed: 22353208
BMC Oral Health. 2014 Jan 30;14:10
pubmed: 24479892
Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Jun;21(5):1445-1455
pubmed: 27406138
J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Nov;118(5):617-623
pubmed: 28385434
J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Mar;119(3):377-383
pubmed: 28689912
BMC Oral Health. 2019 Jun 6;19(1):101
pubmed: 31170969
Technol Health Care. 2021;29(4):781-795
pubmed: 33720863
J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Feb;117(2):253-259
pubmed: 27666500
Clin Oral Investig. 2014 Jul;18(6):1687-94
pubmed: 24240949
J Healthc Eng. 2017;2017:8427595
pubmed: 29065652
Int J Prosthodont. 2020 Mar/Apr;33(2):192-201
pubmed: 32069344
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Dec;26(12):1430-5
pubmed: 25179680