Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42187682
Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions in Edentulous Jaws: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies.
Vánkos Boldizsár László, Qian Xinyi, Kelemen Kata, et al. · Dentistry journal · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.3390/dj14050304
Findings
Population Edentulous typodont/reference models with four to eight implants
9 findings
| Extraoral stereophotogrammetry | None | RMS precision deviation (um) In vitro (typodont/reference model) | MEAN 10.95 [-6.81, 28.71] GRADE not reported 5 studies · 755 participants |
| Extraoral stereophotogrammetry | None | RMS trueness deviation (um) In vitro (typodont/reference model) | MEAN 53.36 [18.44, 88.28] GRADE not reported 7 studies · 241 participants |
| Conventional impression | None | RMS trueness deviation (um) In vitro (typodont/reference model) | MEAN 73.88 [36.68, 111.09] GRADE not reported 11 studies · 321 participants |
| Conventional impression | None | RMS precision deviation (um) In vitro (typodont/reference model) | MEAN 51.89 [24.81, 78.97] GRADE not reported 9 studies · 1160 participants |
| Intraoral scanning with plain scanbodies (IOS plain) | None | RMS precision deviation (um) In vitro (typodont/reference model) | MEAN 75.12 [37.87, 112.36] GRADE not reported 11 studies · 1455 participants |
| Intraoral scanning with plain scanbodies (IOS plain) | None | RMS trueness deviation (um) In vitro (typodont/reference model) | MEAN 99.54 [56.22, 142.86] GRADE not reported 17 studies · 474 participants |
| Intraoral scanning with scanaids (IOS scanaid) | None | RMS trueness deviation (um) In vitro (typodont/reference model) | MEAN 104.88 [36.86, 172.9] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 174 participants |
| Intraoral scanning with scanaids (IOS scanaid) | None | RMS precision deviation (um) In vitro (typodont/reference model) | MEAN 77.93 [-29.75, 185.62] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 325 participants |
| Intraoral scanning with splinted scanbodies (IOS splinted) | None | RMS trueness deviation (um) In vitro (typodont/reference model) | MEAN 65.58 [5.24, 125.92] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 80 participants |
Included primary studies 34
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cheng 2024 Accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and… PMID:38421115 | 2024 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kosago 2023 Comparison of the accuracy between conventional and various digital implant impressions for an implant-supported mandibular complete… PMID:36083233 | 2023 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Ma 2021 Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in… PMID:34893053 | 2021 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Pozzi 2023 Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impression with intraoral optical scanning and stereophotogrammetry: An in vivo prospective… PMID:37485737 | 2023 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Albayrak 2021 Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions. PMID:32935894 | 2021 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Alikhasi 2018 Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Impression versus Conventional Method: Effect of Implant Angulation and Connection Type. PMID:29971107 | 2018 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Amin 2017 Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. PMID:28039903 | 2017 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Anwar 2024 Influence of a specially designed geometric device and modified scan bodies on the accuracy of a maxillary complete arch digital implant… PMID:38472074 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Ashry 2024 Effect of using scan body accessories and inter-implant distances on the accuracy of complete arch implant digital impressions: An in… PMID:38594949 | 2025 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Asli 2021 Three-dimensional accuracy of innovative implant-level impression techniques with plastic snap-on impression copings. PMID:34435758 | 2021 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Azevedo 2024 Effect of splinting scan bodies on the trueness of complete arch digital implant scans with 5 different intraoral scanners. PMID:37537105 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Canullo 2024 Effect of auxiliary geometric devices on the accuracy of intraoral scans in full-arch implant-supported rehabilitations: An in vitro study. PMID:38556193 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| D’haese 2022 In Vitro Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Impressions for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses. PMID:35160045 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Drancourt 2023 Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Impressions for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses: An In Vitro Study. PMID:37241002 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Gómez-Polo 2023 Influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch… PMID:37052054 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Gómez-Polo 2024 Conventional and digital complete arch implant impression techniques: An in vitro study comparing accuracy. PMID:36539313 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Huang 2020 Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: An in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques… PMID:32181919 | 2020 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Ke 2023 Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated… PMID:37236297 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kim 2019 Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression. PMID:30955939 | 2019 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Li 2024 Accuracy of intraoral scanning using modified scan bodies for complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses. PMID:39079817 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Limones 2025 Impact of scanning interruptions on accuracy of implant-supported full-arch scans: An in-vitro pilot study. PMID:39674309 | 2025 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Liu 2024 Accuracy of traditional open-tray impression, stereophotogrammetry, and intraoral scanning with prefabricated aids for implant-supported… PMID:38991886 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Papaspyridakos 2016 Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. PMID:25682892 | 2016 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Pera 2016 Analysis of Different Impression Techniques and Materials on Multiple Implants Through 3-Dimensional Laser Scanner. PMID:26517068 | 2016 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Rajendran 2021 Dimensional accuracy of vinyl polyether and polyvinyl siloxane impression materials in direct implant impression technique for multiple… PMID:34250470 | 2021 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Revilla-León 2023 Trueness and precision of complete-arch photogrammetry implant scanning assessed with a coordinate-measuring machine. PMID:34154820 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Ribeiro 2018 Accuracy of Implant Casts Generated with Conventional and Digital Impressions-An In Vitro Study. PMID:30060540 | 2018 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Shaikh 2022 Do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to conventional impressions? An in… PMID:36511075 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Tan 2019 Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions: Effect of Interimplant Distance in an Edentulous… PMID:30521661 | 2019 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Tohme 2021 Accuracy of Implant Level Intraoral Scanning and Photogrammetry Impression Techniques in a Complete Arch with Angled and Parallel… DOI:10.3390/app11219859 | 2021 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Vandeweghe 2017 Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study. PMID:27150731 | 2017 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Wu 2024 Effect of artificial landmarks of the prefabricated auxiliary devices located at different arch positions on the accuracy of complete-arch… PMID:38072336 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Zhang 2024 Effect of a Novel 'Scan Body' on the In Vitro Scanning Accuracy of Full-Arch Implant Impressions. PMID:38368235 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Zhou 2024 Accuracy of implant abutment level digital impressions using stereophotogrammetry in edentulous jaws: an in vitro pilot study. PMID:39354443 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match). Only the non-Cochrane dental reviews have study lists, so overlap with Cochrane reviews is not counted yet.
| Review | Shared studies | Jaccard |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy of Stereophotogrammetry Technique versus Intraoral Scanners for Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: A Systematic Review… (2026) | 4 | 0.07 |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Dental typodonts with implants | Gypsum or resin edentulous models with 4 implants (n=16 studies), 5 (n=4), 6 (n=12) or 8 (n=2) |
| Intervention | Intraoral scanning with plain scanbodies, splinted scanbodies or scanaids; extraoral stereophotogrammetry | Extraoral stereophotogrammetry; IOS plain; IOS scanaid; IOS splinted |
| Comparison | Conventional impression-taking | Conventional impression |
| Outcomes | Root mean square deviations (trueness and precision) | RMS trueness (18 studies) and RMS precision (12 studies) |
| Study designs | Comparative in vitro studies | 34 comparative in vitro studies |
| Timing | Not specified | Not specified |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | No | No | yes |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | No | No | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: N/A · NRSI: Partial Yes | NRSI: Partial Yes · RCT: Partial Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: N/A · NRSI: No | NRSI: No · RCT: No | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | No | No | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |