1. Comparative assessment of complete-coverage, fixed tooth-supported prostheses fabricated from digital scans or conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- Author
-
Alexis Gaudin, Elhadj Babacar Mbodj, Octave Nadile Bandiaky, Jean-Benoit Hardouin, Marjorie Cheraud-Carpentier, Assem Soueidan, Pierre Le Bars, Université Cheikh Anta Diop [Dakar, Sénégal] (UCAD), Université de Nantes - UFR Odontologie, Université de Nantes (UN), MethodS in Patients-centered outcomes and HEalth ResEarch (SPHERE), Université de Tours (UT)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université de Nantes - UFR des Sciences Pharmaceutiques et Biologiques, Université de Nantes (UN)-Université de Nantes (UN), Unité d'investigation clinique Odontologie [CHU Nantes] (UIC11), Centre hospitalier universitaire de Nantes (CHU Nantes), Regenerative Medicine and Skeleton research lab (RMeS), Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire, Agroalimentaire et de l'alimentation Nantes-Atlantique (ONIRIS)-Centre hospitalier universitaire de Nantes (CHU Nantes)-Université de Nantes - UFR de Médecine et des Techniques Médicales (UFR MEDECINE), Université de Nantes (UN)-Université de Nantes (UN)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Regenerative Medicine and Skeleton (RMeS), École nationale vétérinaire, agroalimentaire et de l'alimentation Nantes-Atlantique (ONIRIS)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Centre hospitalier universitaire de Nantes (CHU Nantes)-Université de Nantes - UFR de Médecine et des Techniques Médicales (UFR MEDECINE), Jehan, Frederic, Université de Tours-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université de Nantes - UFR des Sciences Pharmaceutiques et Biologiques, and Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire, Agroalimentaire et de l'alimentation Nantes-Atlantique (ONIRIS)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Centre hospitalier universitaire de Nantes (CHU Nantes)-Université de Nantes - UFR de Médecine et des Techniques Médicales (UFR MEDECINE)
- Subjects
[SDV.MHEP.AHA] Life Sciences [q-bio]/Human health and pathology/Tissues and Organs [q-bio.TO] ,Dental Impression Technique ,Databases, Factual ,Visual analog scale score ,Computer science ,Population ,MEDLINE ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,[SDV.MHEP.AHA]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Human health and pathology/Tissues and Organs [q-bio.TO] ,Humans ,10. No inequality ,education ,Patient comfort ,Orthodontics ,[SDV.MHEP.RSOA] Life Sciences [q-bio]/Human health and pathology/Rhumatology and musculoskeletal system ,education.field_of_study ,[SDV.MHEP.GEG] Life Sciences [q-bio]/Human health and pathology/Geriatry and gerontology ,[SDV.MHEP.GEG]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Human health and pathology/Geriatry and gerontology ,Dental Impression Materials ,030206 dentistry ,Dental Marginal Adaptation ,Impression ,Clinical trial ,[SDV.MHEP.RSOA]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Human health and pathology/Rhumatology and musculoskeletal system ,Dental Prosthesis Design ,Meta-analysis ,Computer-Aided Design ,Oral Surgery - Abstract
International audience; Statement of problem: Intraoral scanners have significantly improved over the last decade. Nevertheless, data comparing intraoral digital scans with conventional impressions are sparse.Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the impact of impression technique (digital scans versus conventional impressions) on the clinical time, patient comfort, and marginal fit of tooth-supported prostheses.Material and methods: The authors conducted a literature search based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework in 3 databases to identify clinical trials with no language or date restrictions. The mean clinical time, patient comfort, and marginal fit values of each study were independently extracted by 2 review authors and categorized according to the scanning or impression method. The authors assessed the study-level risk of bias.Results: A total of 16 clinical studies met the inclusion criteria. The mean clinical time was statistically similar for digital scan procedures (784 ±252 seconds) and for conventional impression methods (1125 ±159 seconds) (P>.05). The digital scan techniques were more comfortable for patients than conventional impressions; the mean visual analog scale score was 67.8 ±21.7 for digital scans and 39.6 ±9.3 for conventional impressions (P.05).Conclusions: Digital scan techniques are comparable with conventional impressions in terms of clinical time and marginal fit but are more comfortable for patients than conventional impression techniques.
- Published
- 2022