The accuracy of conventional versus digital (intraoral scanner or photogrammetry) impression techniques in full-arch implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to compare the accuracy of conventional impression techniques with digital methods, including intraoral scanners or photogrammetry, in full-arch implant-supported prostheses. An electronic search of the MEDLINE (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane) databases was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review included in vitro studies published between January 2000 to January 2024 that compared the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impression techniques. Descriptive analyses were performed using the data extracted from each study. Twenty-three in vitro studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, eighteen utilized intraoral scanners and five employed photogrammetry. Twelve studies concluded that digital techniques were more accurate than conventional methods, six found conventional techniques to be more accurate, and five reported comparable accuracy between the two methods. Within limitation of the included studies, digital implant impression technique were generally more accurate than conventional methods for full-arch implant-supported prostheses. This review suggests that future research should use perform standardized methodologies and report consistent accuracy outcomes to enable the inclusion of more studies in a meta-analysis. The study was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023397916).