Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42359372
Comparative evaluation of marginal and internal fit of multi-unit fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional versus digital impressions.
Sinha Anamika, Srivastava Gunjan, Panda Sangram Kumar, et al. · Dental research journal · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.4103/drj.drj_604_25
Findings
13 findings
| Population | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tooth-supported multi-unit fixed dental prostheses fabricated in vitro (laboratory specimens) | Digital impression (intraoral scanner) | Conventional impression | Internal fit (internal discrepancy) Not applicable (in vitro measurement) · In vitro (laboratory) · Total of the intraoral scanner subgroup analysis (Trios, Cerec, iTero) | SMD -0.50 [-0.81, -0.19] GRADE not reported 8 studies |
| Tooth-supported multi-unit fixed dental prostheses on in vitro models | Digital impressions (intraoral scanners) | Conventional impressions | Internal fit (internal gap, micrometers) In vitro (laboratory) | SMD -0.52 [-0.79, -0.24] GRADE not reported 9 studies · 224 participants |
| Tooth-supported multi-unit fixed dental prostheses on in vitro models | Digital impressions (intraoral scanners) | Conventional impressions | Marginal fit (marginal gap, micrometers) In vitro (laboratory) | SMD -0.81 [-1.06, -0.56] GRADE not reported 11 studies · 304 participants |
| Tooth-supported multi-unit fixed dental prostheses on in vitro models | Digital impressions (intraoral scanners) | Conventional impressions | Marginal fit (marginal gap, micrometers) In vitro (laboratory) · Total of intraoral scanner subgroup analysis | SMD -0.78 [-1.05, -0.52] GRADE not reported 11 studies · 284 participants |
| Patients requiring tooth-supported multi-unit fixed dental prostheses | Digital impressions (intraoral scanners) | Conventional impressions | Marginal fit (marginal gap, micrometers) Clinical (RCTs) | SMD -0.25 [-0.64, 0.14] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 100 participants |
| Patients requiring tooth-supported multi-unit fixed dental prostheses | Digital impressions (intraoral scanners) | Conventional impressions | Internal fit (internal gap, micrometers) Clinical (RCTs) | SMD -0.15 [-0.55, 0.24] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 100 participants |
| Tooth-supported multi-unit fixed dental prostheses on in vitro models | Digital impressions with Trios scanner | Conventional impressions | Marginal fit (marginal gap, micrometers) In vitro (laboratory) · Trios | SMD -0.91 [-1.30, -0.52] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 116 participants |
| Tooth-supported multi-unit fixed dental prostheses on in vitro models | Digital impressions with Trios scanner | Conventional impressions | Internal fit (internal gap, micrometers) In vitro (laboratory) · Trios | SMD -0.36 [-0.78, 0.05] GRADE not reported 5 studies · 96 participants |
| Tooth-supported multi-unit fixed dental prostheses on in vitro models | Digital impressions with iTero scanner | Conventional impressions | Marginal fit (marginal gap, micrometers) In vitro (laboratory) · iTero | SMD -0.59 [-1.13, -0.04] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 64 participants |
| Tooth-supported multi-unit fixed dental prostheses on in vitro models | Digital impressions with iTero scanner | Conventional impressions | Internal fit (internal gap, micrometers) In vitro (laboratory) · iTero | SMD -0.80 [-1.46, -0.13] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 44 participants |
| Tooth-supported multi-unit fixed dental prostheses on in vitro models | Digital impressions with Lava scanner | Conventional impressions | Marginal fit (marginal gap, micrometers) In vitro (laboratory) · Lava | SMD -0.55 [-1.33, 0.22] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 44 participants |
| Tooth-supported multi-unit fixed dental prostheses on in vitro models | Digital impressions with Cerec scanner | Conventional impressions | Marginal fit (marginal gap, micrometers) In vitro (laboratory) · Cerec | SMD -0.86 [-1.43, -0.30] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 60 participants |
| Tooth-supported multi-unit fixed dental prostheses on in vitro models | Digital impressions with Cerec scanner | Conventional impressions | Internal fit (internal gap, micrometers) In vitro (laboratory) · Cerec | SMD -0.54 [-1.17, 0.09] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 40 participants |
Included primary studies 14
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahrberg 2016 Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a… PMID:26070435 | 2016 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Bandiaky 2023 Marginal and internal fit of five-unit zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses fabricated with digital scans and conventional impressions:… PMID:36627825 | 2023 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Almeida e Silva 2014 Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. PMID:23716064 | 2014 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Arezoobakhsh 2020 Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit zirconia frameworks fabricated with CAD-CAM technology using direct and indirect digital… PMID:30982618 | 2020 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Benic 2019 Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures.… PMID:30396708 | 2019 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Keul 2014 Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization--a laboratory study. PMID:24522150 | 2014 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kim 2018 Effect of number of pontics and impression technique on the accuracy of four-unit monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses. PMID:29526302 | 2018 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kocaağaoğlu 2019 Evaluation of marginal adaptation in three-unit frameworks fabricated with conventional and powder-free digital impression techniques. PMID:31754416 | 2019 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Morsy 2021 Fit of monolithic multilayer zirconia fixed partial dentures fabricated by conventional versus digital impression: a clinical and… PMID:33619632 | 2021 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Moustapha 2019 Evaluation of the fit of zirconia three-unit fixed partial dentures fabricated by different impression techniques. PMID:31001919 | 2019 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Shembesh 2017 An In Vitro Comparison of the Marginal Adaptation Accuracy of CAD/CAM Restorations Using Different Impression Systems. PMID:26855068 | 2017 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Su 2016 Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses made with either a conventional or digital impression. PMID:27061628 | 2016 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Svanborg 2014 Marginal and internal fit of cobalt-chromium fixed dental prostheses generated from digital and conventional impressions. PMID:24723954 | 2014 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Uluc 2022 Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 5-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses fabricated with CAD/CAM technology using direct and… PMID:35028021 | 2022 | 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 question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Patients requiring multi-unit fixed dental prostheses (in vivo and in vitro studies) | Tooth-supported multi-unit FDPs: 11 in vitro studies and 3 RCTs (8 to 12 patients or specimens per study) |
| Intervention | Digital impressions (intraoral scanners) | Digital impressions: Trios, Cerec, iTero, Lava, CS3600, CS3500 |
| Comparison | Conventional impressions | Conventional impressions (PVS or polyether) |
| Outcomes | Marginal and internal fit (primary); accuracy of different intraoral scanners (secondary) | Marginal fit (11 in vitro studies, 3 RCTs); internal fit (9 in vitro studies, 3 RCTs) |
| Study designs | Controlled in vivo and in vitro studies published in English, 2013 to January 2025 | 11 in vitro studies and 3 RCTs (n=14) |
| 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 | Yes | no |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: Partial Yes · RCT: Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: No · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: No · RCT: Yes | 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 | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |