Intraoral Scanning Versus Conventional Methods for Obtaining Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Fernanda L. Vieira ¹

Maísa Carnietto ²

José R. A. Cerqueira Filho ³

Ester Alves Ferreira Bordini ⁴

Hiskell Francine Fernandes e Oliveira ⁵

Thiago A. Pegoraro ⁶

Joel Ferreira Santiago ⁴

Hide authors affiliations

Postgraduate Program in Oral Rehabilitation, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto 14040-904, SP, Brazil |

Independent Researcher, Avaré 18700-030, SP, Brazil |

Military Fire Department of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 20211-030, RJ, Brazil

⁴

Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto 14040-904, SP, Brazil |

⁵

Bone Research Lab, School of Dentistry of Ribeirao Preto, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirão Preto 14040-904, SP, Brazil |

⁶

Dentistry Course Coordinator in Sacred Heart University Center, Bauru 17011-160, SP, Brazil |

Publication type: Journal Article

Publication date: 2025-01-08

MDPI

Journal: Applied Sciences (Switzerland)

scimago Q2

SJR: 0.508

CiteScore: 5.3

Impact factor: 2.5

ISSN: 20763417

DOI: 10.3390/app15020533

Copy DOI

Abstract

There is still no consensus on whether intraoral scanning for producing full-arch implant-supported prostheses is effective. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to analyze clinical studies that evaluated intraoral scanning versus conventional impression to obtain rehabilitation of full-arch fixed prostheses and removable. Registration was carried out in the PROSPERO database (CRD: 42020152197). Searches were performed in 11 databases. Review Manager 7.2 (2024) software was used for the quantitative analysis stage (α = 0.05). Bias analysis was conducted using the ROBINS-I and ROB scales, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE scale. The initial search showed 33,975 abstracts and titles, from which, after applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 11 clinical studies were selected. Based on the studies collected, it was observed that there was no difference in the comparison between the digital (DG) and conventional (CG) groups for the following criteria: technical and biological complication rates and marginal bone loss (p > 0.05). The analysis of clinical execution time highlights a notable advantage of the DG over the CG at both scanned patient and implant levels (p < 0.05). Nevertheless, CG achieved fewer retakes than the DG (p < 0.05), demonstrating its reliability in execution. It is concluded that the survival rates of full-arch fixed prostheses produced using intraoral scanning are comparable to those achieved with traditional impression techniques, providing a reliable option for patients. However, further clinical studies are necessary due to the variability in clinical protocols.