Primary study · included by 1 review
Patient‐centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial
Joda & Brägger 2016 (patient-centered) · Joda Tim, Brägger Urs · Clinical Oral Implants Research · 2015
Included by
| Outcome this study informs | Pooled effect | Evidence | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Patient-reported comfort and satisfaction (VAS 0-100) Fully digital workflow (intraoral scanning) vs Conventional workflow (elastomeric impression) | MD 13.98 [-7.74, 35.70] | 4 studies · 172 participants | Moderate |
Total procedure time (minutes) Fully digital workflow (intraoral scanning) vs Conventional workflow (elastomeric impression) | MD -4.27 [-9.75, 1.20] | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
Total procedure time (minutes) Fully digital workflow (intraoral scanning) vs Conventional workflow (elastomeric impression) | MD -3.33 [-7.59, 0.93] | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
Total procedure time (minutes) Fully digital workflow (intraoral scanning) vs Conventional workflow (elastomeric impression) | MD -5.43 [-8.86, -1.99] | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
Total procedure time (minutes) Fully digital workflow (intraoral scanning) vs Conventional workflow (elastomeric impression) | MD -4.53 [-9.94, 0.88] | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
Total procedure time (minutes) Fully digital workflow (intraoral scanning) vs Conventional workflow (elastomeric impression) | MD -4.28 [-8.40, -0.16] | 6 studies · 278 participants | Moderate |
Total procedure time (minutes) Fully digital workflow (intraoral scanning) vs Conventional workflow (elastomeric impression) | MD -4.49 [-9.92, 0.94] | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
Total procedure time (minutes) Fully digital workflow (intraoral scanning) vs Conventional workflow (elastomeric impression) | MD -3.58 [-8.49, 1.32] | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
1 including review in total.