3D Digital Impression Systems Compared with Traditional Techniques in Dentistry: A Recent Data Systematic Review

The advent of new technologies in the field of medicine and dentistry is giving improvements that lead the clinicians to have materials and procedures able to improve patients’ quality of life. In dentistry, the last digital techniques offer a fully digital computerized workflow that does not include the standard multiple traditional phases. The purpose of this study is to evaluate all clinical trials and clinical randomized trials related to the digital or dental impression technique in prosthetic dentistry trying to give the readers global information about advantages and disadvantages of each procedure. Data collection was conducted in the main scientific search engines, including articles from the last 10 years, in order to obtain results that do not concern obsolete impression techniques. Elsevier, Pubmed and Embase have been screened as sources for performing the research. The results data demonstrated how the working time appears to be improved with digital workflow, but without a significant result (P = 0.72596). The papers have been selected following the Population Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICO) question, which is related to the progress on dental impression materials and technique. The comparison between dentists or practitioners with respect to classic impression procedures, and students open to new device and digital techniques seem to be the key factor on the final impression technique choice. Surely, digital techniques will end up supplanting the analogical ones altogether, improving the quality of oral rehabilitations, the economics of dental practice and also the perception by our patients.

[1]  Gabriele Cervino,et al.  Impression materials: does water affect the performance of alginates? , 2020, Minerva stomatologica.

[2]  F. Mangano,et al.  An Experimental Strategy for Capturing the Margins of Prepared Single Teeth with an Intraoral Scanner: A Prospective Clinical Study on 30 Patients , 2020, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[3]  S. Imazato,et al.  Autoclave sterilization of dental handpieces: A literature review. , 2020, Journal of prosthodontic research.

[4]  Hidemichi Kihara,et al.  Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review. , 2020, Journal of prosthodontic research.

[5]  Burak Yilmaz,et al.  A digital intraoral implant scan technique using a combined healing abutment and scan body system. , 2020, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[6]  Gabriele Cervino,et al.  Reliability of a Virtual Prosthodontic Project Realized through a 2D and 3D Photographic Acquisition: An Experimental Study on the Accuracy of Different Digital Systems , 2019, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[7]  Gabriele Cervino,et al.  Comparison of Two Low-Profile Prosthetic Retention System Interfaces: Preliminary Data of an In Vitro Study , 2019 .

[8]  Miguel Gómez-Polo,et al.  Photogrammetric and intraoral digital impression technique for the rehabilitation of multiple unfavorably positioned dental implants - a clinical report. , 2019, The Journal of oral implantology.

[9]  G. Risitano,et al.  Prosthetic and Mechanical Parameters of the Facial Bone under the Load of Different Dental Implant Shapes: A Parametric Study , 2019, Prosthesis.

[10]  Francesco Grande,et al.  New Tricks in the Preparation Design for Prosthetic Ceramic Laminate Veeners , 2019, Prosthesis.

[11]  F. Collares,et al.  CAD/CAM or conventional ceramic materials restorations longevity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2019, Journal of prosthodontic research.

[12]  João Caramês,et al.  Total digital workflow in the fabrication of a partial removable dental prostheses: A case report , 2019, SAGE Open Medical Case Reports.

[13]  Jan-Frederik Güth,et al.  Digital impressions in dentistry—accuracy of impression digitalisation by desktop scanners , 2019, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[14]  Marco Cicciù,et al.  Prosthesis: New Technological Opportunities and Innovative Biomedical Devices , 2019, Prosthesis.

[15]  B. Sampaio-Maia,et al.  A simple and effective method for addition silicone impression disinfection , 2019, The journal of advanced prosthodontics.

[16]  Alessandro Ricci,et al.  Evaluation of the Accuracy of Four Digital Methods by Linear and Volumetric Analysis of Dental Impressions , 2019, Materials.

[17]  L. Fiorillo Chlorhexidine Gel Use in the Oral District: A Systematic Review , 2019, Gels.

[18]  Xiaobin Zhou,et al.  The effects of the PRISMA statement to improve the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions for patients with heart failure. , 2019, International journal of nursing practice.

[19]  G. Spagnuolo,et al.  Dental Restorative Digital Workflow: Digital Smile Design from Aesthetic to Function , 2019, Dentistry journal.

[20]  M. Walters,et al.  Intraoral Digital Impression Technique for a Neonate With Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate , 2019, The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association.

[21]  G. Sannino,et al.  Conventional versus Digital Impressions for Full Arch Screw-Retained Maxillary Rehabilitations: A Randomized Clinical Trial , 2019, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[22]  H. Pardo-Hernandez,et al.  Quality of reporting and risk of bias of randomized clinical trials published in Spanish and Latin American journals. , 2019, Medwave.

[23]  Vincent Fehmer,et al.  Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part I: Time efficiency of complete-arch digital scans versus conventional impressions. , 2019, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[24]  A. Keepanasseril,et al.  Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Dentistry: A Systematic Review , 2019, Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research.

[25]  Gabriele Cervino,et al.  Alginate Materials and Dental Impression Technique: A Current State of the Art and Application to Dental Practice , 2018, Marine drugs.

[26]  V. Cave,et al.  Digital and conventional impressions have similar working times , 2018, Evidence-Based Dentistry.

[27]  T. Okuda,et al.  Effect of ozonated water on the surface roughness of dental stone casts. , 2018, Dental materials journal.

[28]  Aalok Mishra,et al.  Evaluation of the Efficacy of Different Mixing Techniques and Disinfection on Microbial Colonization of Polyether Impression Materials: A Comparative Study. , 2018, Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice.

[29]  T. Joda,et al.  Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial , 2017, Clinical oral implants research.

[30]  T. Joda,et al.  Dental Students' Perceptions of Digital and Conventional Impression Techniques: A Randomized Controlled Trial. , 2017, Journal of dental education.

[31]  Nawapat Sakornwimon,et al.  Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients’ preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[32]  Vincent Fehmer,et al.  Randomized controlled within‐subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part II: CAD‐CAM versus conventional laboratory procedures , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[33]  Kazuyoshi Baba,et al.  In vivo evaluation of inter-operator reproducibility of digital dental and conventional impression techniques , 2017, PloS one.

[34]  A. Frigo,et al.  Reproducibility of a Digital Method to Evaluate Soft Tissue Modifications: A study of Inter and Intra-Operative Measurement Concordance , 2017, The open dentistry journal.

[35]  Irena Sailer,et al.  Randomized controlled within‐subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part III: marginal and internal fit , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[36]  U. Brägger,et al.  Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. , 2016, Clinical oral implants research.

[37]  Vincent Fehmer,et al.  Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part I: digital versus conventional unilateral impressions. , 2016, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[38]  B. Chrcanovic,et al.  Intraoral Digital Impression Technique Compared to Conventional Impression Technique. A Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2016, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[39]  Enrico Gherlone,et al.  Conventional Versus Digital Impressions for "All-on-Four" Restorations. , 2016, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[40]  T. Attin,et al.  In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. , 2016, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[41]  Rachel Churchill,et al.  ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[42]  Lun Li,et al.  The PRISMA Extension Statement , 2015, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[43]  Jack L. Vevea,et al.  Publication bias as a function of study characteristics. , 2015, Psychological methods.

[44]  Kristian Thorlund,et al.  The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations , 2015, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[45]  G. Matarese,et al.  Valutazione dei sistemi di ingrandimento in odontoiatria conservativa e restaurativa. Studio in vitro , 2015 .

[46]  Seok-Hwan Cho,et al.  Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods. , 2015, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[47]  B. Wöstmann,et al.  Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients , 2015, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[48]  E. Yuzbasioglu,et al.  Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes , 2014, BMC oral health.

[49]  Albert Mehl,et al.  Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. , 2013, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[50]  J. Sterne,et al.  The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[51]  J. Berg,et al.  The dynamic interaction of water with four dental impression materials during cure. , 2009, Journal of Prosthodontics.

[52]  M. Nobre,et al.  The PICO strategy for the research question construction and evidence search. , 2007, Revista latino-americana de enfermagem.