Comparative analyses of accuracy between digital and conventional impressions for complete‐arch implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses—A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Systematic review reveals no major accuracy difference between digital impressions and conventional methods in complete-arch implants, suggesting both have clinical validity.
Key Points
Core finding indicates digital impressions show comparable 3D accuracy to conventional impressions for fixed dental prostheses.
Meta-analysis of 25 studies found no significant difference in impression accuracy, with a p-value of 0.74 indicating similarity.
Subgroup analysis demonstrated conventional impressions slightly favored over digital when more than 4 implants were present.
Evidence suggests a need for better-designed studies to establish standards for using digital techniques in clinical practice.