Primary study · included by 1 review
Conventional versus Digital Impressions for Full Arch Screw-Retained Maxillary Rehabilitations: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Capparè 2019 · Cappare Paolo, Sannino Gianpaolo, Minoli Margherita, et al. · International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
Included by
| Outcome this study informs | Pooled effect | Evidence | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
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 |
Implant survival (implant failure) Fully digital workflow (intraoral scanning) vs Conventional workflow (elastomeric impression) · 1 to 4 years | RR 1.00 [0.98, 1.02] | 4 studies · 202 participants | High |
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.