Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impression (IDI) in Fixed Prosthodontics: Systematic Review

Siraj DAA Khan^1*, Bader Ahmad M Al Ishaq², Nasser Saleh B Al Aqil², Naif Makran Al Gharban² and Abdullah Hassan M Al Khamsan²

^*Correspondence: Siraj DAA Khan, Supervisor, Pediatric Dentistry, Saudi Arabia, Email:

Author info »

Introduction

The success of fixed restoration depends upon the accurate impression [1]. In the conventional method, impression material is used to record the details of the preparation of tooth and anatomy of the oral cavity of patients, and then this impression has to send to the laboratory for further processing. This procedure contains many errors and operating steps. In the fixed treatment of restoration, the system of Intraoral Digital Impression (IDI) has developed with the improvement in digital technology [2]. In the fixed prosthodontics field; the use of IOS (Intraoral scanners) has become more common to obtain direct digital impression. This is because of numerous benefits that come from their use, for example, it could be more comfortable for patients and faster [3-5]. These benefits make this procedure possible to replace with the regular ones, which are more easily shared and stored [6]. A scanning probe is used in IDI to record the oral cavity’s anatomy in three dimensions and transfer it to the laboratory in the meantime, it saves consumption of both material and time, thus enhance the economic benefits [7]. Intraoral scanning is considered a faster and more convenient technology from the point of view of both dentists and patients [8]. This technique has many advantages e.g., real-time visualization, no need to clean and disinfect the impression tray and dental impressions, easily repeatable, selective capture of relevant areas, fast availability and communication, no wear of the model and caste pouring [9,10].

In spite of having the obvious benefits of intraoral digital scanning, this is also necessary to investigate whether this technique could prove itself as a suitable substitute for conventional impressions regarding accuracy. This quality represents an essential condition of fixed prosthodontics for its proper adaptation. In this regard, accuracy can be defined as the collection of two elements, precision and trueness, both are complementary and necessary. The capability of capturing the real entity of a quantity is termed as trueness [3,11] and to record this same quantity with following samplings [12,13].

It has been reported that the use of digital impressions can acquire more accuracy for restoration but in fixed restoration, the current IDI clinical effects in comparison with the conventional methods are still not clear [14]. So in the present review, the studies that compare the digital scanning with conventional methods which used highly accurate material in fixed prosthodontics like polyvinyl siloxane and polyether were included.

The main aim of the current review was to determine the accuracy of IDI in comparison with the conventional impression method and to assess whether it could be a substitute to conventional impressions for the preparation of fixed prosthodontics.

Methodology

A literature search was performed electronically in the PubMed database by using the following terms; IOS techniques, IDI, Digital impression, accuracy of digital impression, digital impression in fixed prosthodontics, restoration accuracy to obtain some potential references for this review. The aim of the search was to collect those articles that determine the accuracy digital impressions for arch/teeth published until 2021.

The inclusion criteria for the articles was if it was in English, clinical or laboratory study, assessing the IOS system, scanning accuracy and those articles which were not in English language, review articles and duplicate articles were excluded.

Based on the inclusion criteria, the selection was performed in 4 steps. In the first step, a list of titles was collected from the database and those titles which didn’t match the criteria were not included. In 2nd step, duplicated articles were excluded. In step 3rd the abstracts of the articles were screened to check the inclusion criteria. In the 4th step, the full-length articles were analyzed and verified qualitative analysis.

Results and Discussion

After selection, the authors finalized the 17 studies for this review. These studies include different intraoral scanning systems such as Lava COS (3M ESPE) [9,12,13,15-19] iTero [12,13,15,18-21] Cerec [12,13,15,18,19,22,23] and Trios [12,13,24-28] The development in the digital technology makes IDI convenient for the patients in oral fixation treatment. After many years of its development, the intraoral digital impression has improved greatly in its repeatability, comfort and accuracy [29,30].

Various studies investigated the accuracy of impression methods [9,12,13,16-28]. Flugge et al. [21] investigated the precision of intraoral scanners and compared it with conventional highly accurate impression material. Results showed that conventional impression presented the highest precision. Similar results were reported by other researchers in which precision belonged to the conventional method [12,13]. It has been reported that the digital scan group showed better marginal fitness as compared to the conventional group [9,16,18,20]. Standard probes were used in some studies to determine the edge tightness of the prosthesis [22,23,24,26,27]. Better adhesion was presented by the digital scanners. To check the accuracy of impression in clinical trials, the stability of edge adhesion and restoration is used. The correct edge adhesion for restoration is very essential for the success of treatment [31]. Gan et al. [25] measured both precision and trueness of full-arch digital impression. They concluded that trueness could not be affected by arch width but it can affect the precision of impression.

Four papers recorded the operation time [9,15,22,24]. Results showed that the operation time of the oral scan group was shorter than that of the control group. Regular impression techniques may create distress to patients e.g. nausea, breath shortness and retching [32]. Continuous improvement in IDI system reduced the volume of IOS, the 3D (three dimensional) digital image is more clear and operating time is short. Digital impression also causes a number of discomforts due to impression materials. The experience of patients has increased steadily [33]. It has been shown that patients experience more comfort when the time of mold-taking is short (Table 1 and Figure 1) [32,34].

Table 1: The analysis of included literature.

Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of data collection.

Conclusion

The qualitative analysis of these studies shows that digital impression could be a substitute for the conventional method to a certain limit because its operating time is shorter as compared to the regular impression method. It may become the better option for the restoration impression of fixed prosthodontics. But in order to effective and complete evaluation of clinical effects in the oral fixation field related to IDI technology, long term follow up and more clinical studies with high quality should be performed for further guidance.

Limitations

None.

Conflict of Interest

None of the authors have conflict of interest regarding the manuscript.

Animal and Human Rights Statements

No animal or human study was carried out by the authors for this research.

Funding Statement

None.

Scientific Responsibilities Statements

The authors declare that they are responsible for the article’s scientific content including study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, writing, some of the main line, or all of the preparation and scientific review of the contents and approval of the final version of the article.

References

1. Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, et al. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent 2018; 69:110-118.
2. Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: A systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod 2016; 38:422-428.
3. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, et al. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: A review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health 2017; 17:149-159.
4. Joda T, Bragger U. Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression producers: A randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27:185-189.
5. Joda T, Leherr P, Dedem P, et al. Time efficiency, difficulty and operator’s preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: A randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28:1318-1323.
6. Joda T, Zarone F, Ferrari M. The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review. BMC Oral Health 2017; 17: 124.
7. Alghazzawi TF. Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: Options for practical implementation. J Prosthodont Res 2016; 60:72-84.
8. Kim RJ, Park JM, Shim JS. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 120:895‑9030.
9. Ahrberg D, Lauer HC, Ahrberg M. Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20:291-300.
10. Ueda K, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, et al. Fit of 4‑unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20:283‑289.
11. Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, et al. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: A comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2017; 17:92.
12. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, et al. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impression. Clinic Oral Investig 2016; 20:1495-1504.
13. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115:313-320.
14. Rutkunas V, Gečiauskaitė A, Jegelevičius D, et al. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017; 10:101-120.
15. Benic GI, Mühlemann S, Fehmer V. Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part Ⅰ: Digital versus conventional unilateral impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 116: 777-782.
16. Sakornwimon N, Leevailoj C. Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients' preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 118:386-391.
17. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wave front sampling. J Dent 2010; 38:553-559.
18. Zeltner M, Sailer I, Mühlemann S. Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part Ⅲ: Marginal and internal fit. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117:354-362.
19. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: A new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013; 109:121-128.
20. Zarauz C, Valverde A, Martinez-Rus F, et al. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20:799-806.
21. Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, et al. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144:471-478.
22. Zhang Bo, Yi Yuanping. Clinical application analysis of digital impression technology in dental restoration. Guizhou Medicine 2019; 43:1297-1299.
23. Zhang ZS, Jin D, Zhang Y, et al. Study on the clinical effect of difference between digital and traditional impression methods for fixed restoration. J Clin Stomatol 2019; 35:20-23.
24. Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK, et al. Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial. J Prosthodont 2016; 25:282-287.
25. Gan N, Xiong Y, Jiao T. Accuracy of intraoral digital impression for whole upper jaws, including full dentitions and palatal soft tissues. PLoS One 2016; 11:0158800.
26. Haddadi Y, Bahrami G, Isidor F. Accuracy of crowns based on digital intraoral scanning compared to conventional impression-a split-mouth randomised clinical study. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23:4043-4050.
27. Han Xiaoqian, Lv Lixia, Dong Zhiheng. Clinical effect evaluation of digital impression technology and traditional impression technology in making all-ceramic crowns. Electronic J Stomatol 2019; 6:88-90.
28. Tohme H, Lawand G, Chmielewska M, et al. Comparison between stereo photogrammetric, digital and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An in vitro study. J of Prosthetic Dent 2021.
29.  Kihara H, Hatakeyama W, Komine F. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review. J Prosthodont Res 2020; 64:109-113.
30. Takeuchi Y, Koizumi H, Furuchi M. Use of digital impression systems with intraoral scanners for fabricating restorations and fixed dental prostheses. J Oral Sci 2018; 60:1-7.
31. Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: A systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018; 26:101-121.
32. Gallardo YR, Bohner L, Tortamano P, et al. Patient outcomes and procedure working time for digital versus conventional impressions: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119: 214-219.
33. Aragon ML, Pontes LF, Bichara LM, et al. Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: A systematic review. Eur J Orthod 2016; 38:429-434.
34. Haddadi Y, Bahrami G, Isidor F. Evaluation of operating time and patient perception using conventional impression taking and intraoral scanning for crown manufacture: A split-mouth, randomized clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 2018; 31:55-59.