Abstract：
To compare conventional and digital workflows in terms of accuracy in partially edentulous cases restored with implant-supported restorations.
An electronic search in the databases PubMed, Scopus, Web Of Science, and CENTRAL was conducted to identify relevant publications, comparing digital and conventional workflows in partially edentulous cases restored with implant-supported prostheses.
18 articles were included in the systematic review. Ten of the studies were in-vitro, and eight were clinical. Sample sizes varied considerably from 20 to 100. In three studies, three implants were investigated, whereas, in all other instances, accuracy was evaluated on two implants. Substantial heterogeneity in the methodology of the selected studies is evident, which prevents summarising the accuracy outcomes.
Digital impressions showed similar results in terms of accuracy compared to the conventional approach. There is a lack of uniform criteria for the tolerable misfit, which hampers the ability to transfer in-vitro results to clinical situations. A need for a standardised approach in the evaluation of impression and workflow accuracy is warranted to enable the systematisation and analysis of results from different studies.
An electronic search in the databases PubMed, Scopus, Web Of Science, and CENTRAL was conducted to identify relevant publications, comparing digital and conventional workflows in partially edentulous cases restored with implant-supported prostheses.
18 articles were included in the systematic review. Ten of the studies were in-vitro, and eight were clinical. Sample sizes varied considerably from 20 to 100. In three studies, three implants were investigated, whereas, in all other instances, accuracy was evaluated on two implants. Substantial heterogeneity in the methodology of the selected studies is evident, which prevents summarising the accuracy outcomes.
Digital impressions showed similar results in terms of accuracy compared to the conventional approach. There is a lack of uniform criteria for the tolerable misfit, which hampers the ability to transfer in-vitro results to clinical situations. A need for a standardised approach in the evaluation of impression and workflow accuracy is warranted to enable the systematisation and analysis of results from different studies.
摘要：
目的：比较常规和数字工作流程在使用植入物支持的修复体修复的部分缺牙病例中的准确性。
方法：在PubMed数据库中进行电子搜索，Scopus,网络科学,并进行了CENTRAL以识别相关出版物，比较使用植入物支撑假体修复的部分缺牙病例中的数字和常规工作流程。
结果：18篇文献纳入系统综述。其中十项研究是在体外进行的，八个是临床的。样品大小从20到100变化很大。在三项研究中，对三个植入物进行了调查，然而,在所有其他情况下，在两个植入物上评估准确性。所选研究方法的实质性异质性是显而易见的，这阻止了对准确性结果的总结。
结论：与传统方法相比，数字印象在准确性方面显示出相似的结果。对于可容忍的不适合，缺乏统一的标准，这阻碍了将体外结果转移到临床情况的能力。需要一种标准化的方法来评估印象和工作流程的准确性，以便能够对不同研究的结果进行系统化和分析。
方法：在PubMed数据库中进行电子搜索，Scopus,网络科学,并进行了CENTRAL以识别相关出版物，比较使用植入物支撑假体修复的部分缺牙病例中的数字和常规工作流程。
结果：18篇文献纳入系统综述。其中十项研究是在体外进行的，八个是临床的。样品大小从20到100变化很大。在三项研究中，对三个植入物进行了调查，然而,在所有其他情况下，在两个植入物上评估准确性。所选研究方法的实质性异质性是显而易见的，这阻止了对准确性结果的总结。
结论：与传统方法相比，数字印象在准确性方面显示出相似的结果。对于可容忍的不适合，缺乏统一的标准，这阻碍了将体外结果转移到临床情况的能力。需要一种标准化的方法来评估印象和工作流程的准确性，以便能够对不同研究的结果进行系统化和分析。
