We have detected that you are using an Ad Blocker. PracticeUpdate is free to end users but we rely on advertising to fund our site. Please consider supporting PracticeUpdate by whitelisting us in your ad blocker.
We have sent a message to the email address you have provided, . If this email is not correct, please update your settings with your correct address.
The email address you provided during registration, , does not appear to be valid. Please update your settings with a valid address before to continue using PracticeUpdate.
A PracticeUpdate collaboration from Elsevier and the American Dental Association
Through the PracticeUpdate Clinical Dentistry Channel, Elsevier and the ADA have teamed up to bring you expert-curated updates from journals, news and educational resources, available 24/7, to keep you current with clinical advances.
You can find your saved items on your dashboard, in the "saved" tab.
You've recommended your first item
Your recommendations help us improve our content suggestions for you and other PracticeUpdate members.
You've subscribed to your first topic alert
What does that mean?
Each day, we'll check to see if new items have been published to the topics you're subscribed to, and we'll send you one email with all of the new items from that day.
We'll keep all topic alert notifications available on your dashboard for 30 days, to make sure you don't miss anything.
Lastly, whenever you have unread items in the topics you've subscribed to, the "Alerts" icon will light up in the main menu. Just click on the bell to see your five most-recent, unread notifications.
This systematic review and meta-analysis analyzed the clinical outcomes of tooth-supported and implant-supported fixed prostheses fabricated using conventional and digital impression techniques. Based on the included eight randomized clinical trials (four studies on tooth-supported fixed prostheses and four studies on implant-supported fixed prostheses), the authors reported no significant differences in clinical outcomes between implant-supported fixed prostheses fabricated using a conventional impression and those fabricated using a digital impression. For a tooth-supported fixed prosthesis, the marginal fit of the prosthesis fabricated using the digital impression was significantly better, except for the occlusal region, where a conventional impression led to a favorable outcome.
No significant differences in clinical outcomes were observed between implant-supported fixed prostheses fabricated using conventional and digital impression techniques. Despite discrepancies in the occlusal region, a favorable marginal fit was obtained in tooth-supported fixed prostheses fabricated using digital impressions.
To analyze the clinical outcomes of implant-supported prostheses and tooth-supported fixed prostheses, fabricated from digital and conventional impression.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The literature search was carried out on two electronic databases (PubMed and Cochrane Library). Randomized controlled trials (RCT) published from January 2011 to September 2022 were included. The bias risk was evaluated using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Further screening was done for meta-analysis according to modified Newcastle-Ottawa scoring criteria. Forest plot was generated using a statistical method of inverse variance of random effect with 95% confidence interval.
A total of 8 randomized controlled trials were included for systematic review out of which four studies were based on tooth-supported fixed prosthesis and remaining four were based on implant-supported prosthesis. Further screening was conducted and three studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Tooth-supported fixed prosthesis fabricated from digital impression showed no significant difference in the marginal fit in any region measured, except for occlusal region where conventional impression showed more favorable marginal fit. Implant-supported prosthesis fabricated from digital impression showed survival rates ranging from 97.3 to 100% and there was no statistically significant difference in marginal bone loss (p = 0.14).
Implant-supported prostheses fabricated from digital and conventional impressions show no significant differences in their clinical outcomes. Tooth-supported fixed prostheses fabricated from digital impression have shown favorable findings in terms of marginal fit. Despite that, there is still lack of clinical trials with larger sample size and longer follow-up periods. Future studies that fulfill these two criteria are deemed necessary.