02 March 2022

---

Comparison between digital scan and conventional impression to fabricate dental prosthesis

Co-authors: Claudia Mazzitelli, Federico Del Bianco

Lorenzo Breschi

---

CAD/CAM technology is driving the attention of clinician and researchers, nowadays being present in almost all branches of Dentistry. Particular attention has been advocated to digital technology for prosthesis fabrication, including dental impressions. Although no clear advantages have been reported in literature for one method over the other, CAD/CAM scans present many advantages such has being faster, time-saving and more comfortable for the patients. Notwithstanding the several advantages reported for digital scans, major concerns are addressed to the training necessary for obtaining reliable impressions. Very recently, a systematic review and meta-analysis has been conducted on in vivo studies to compare conventional dental impressions with the digital scans for the fabrication of fixed-tooth supported prosthesis. The main outcomes were clinical time required, patient acceptability and marginal fit of the prosthesis. 

Materials & Methods
An electronic search was conducted by 2 independent reviewers on Medline/Pubmed, Cochrane Library and Science Direct. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative studies (PCSs) comparing the conventional vs digital impressions for complete-coverage, fixed-tooth supported prosthetic were taken into consideration. Supplemental manual search implemented the strategy. 

Results
A total of 14 RCTs and 2 PCSs were considered for the systematic review. The authors reported mean clinical time statistically similar for digital scan procedures (784 ±252 seconds) and conventional impression methods (1125 ±159 seconds) (P>.05). In addition, the mean visual analog scale score evaluated by the authors was 67.8 ±21.7 for digital scans and 39.6 ±9.3 for conventional impressions (P<.05). In conclusion the mean marginal fit was 80.9 ±31.9 mm and 92.1 ±35.4 mm for digital scan and conventional impressions, respectively, with no statistically significant difference between these two methodologies (P>.05).

Conclusions
According to the results of the systematic review and meta-analysis, the digital scan technique is comparable to the conventional impressions in terms of clinical time and marginal fit. However, patients reported higher level of acceptability when digital scan was used instead of conventional impression techniques.

For additional information:  Comparative assessment of complete-coverage, fixed tooth-supported prostheses fabricated from digital scans or conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.