ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of digital impression techniques and conventional methods for full-arch implant impressions. METHODS: An electronic literature search in the databases Medline (Pubmed), Web of Science, and Embase was performed to identify in vitro and in vivo publications (between 2016 and 2022) directly comparing digital and conventional abutment-level impression techniques. All selected articles passed through the data extraction procedure according to defined parameters in inclusion and exclusion criteria. Measurements on linear, angular and/or surface deviations were performed in all selected articles. RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for this systematic review. 3 articles were clinical studies and 6 studies were in vitro. Accuracy difference mean values of the trueness up to 162+/-77µm between digital and conventional techniques were reported in the clinical studies and up to 43µm in laboratory studies. Methodological heterogeneity was observed in both, in vivo and in vitro studies. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoral scanning and photogrammetric method showed comparable accuracy for registering implant positions in the full-arch edentulous cases. A tolerable implant prosthesis misfit threshold and objective misfit assessment criteria (for linear and angular deviations) should be verified in clinical studies.
