Accuracy is a crucial factor when assessing the quality of digital impressions. This systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of intraoral scan (IOS) in obtaining digital impressions of edentulous jaws.
This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022382983). A thorough retrieval of 7 electronic databases was undertaken, encompassing MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Virtual Health Library, and Open gray, through September 11, 2023. A snowball search was performed by tracing the reference lists of the included studies. The Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) question of this systematic review was: \"What is the accuracy of intraoral scan in obtaining digital impressions of edentulous arches?\" The Modified Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) was employed to assess the risk of bias.
Among the studies retrieved from databases and manual search, a total of 25 studies were selected for inclusion in this systematic review, including 9 in vivo and 16 in vitro studies. Twenty-one of the included studies utilized the 3D deviation analysis method, while 4 studies employed the linear or angular deviation analysis method. The accuracy results of in vitro studies indicated a trueness range of 20-600 μm and a precision range of 2-700 μm. Results of in vivo studies indicated a trueness range of 40-1380 μm, while the precision results were not reported.
According to the results of this study, direct digital impressions by IOS cannot replace the conventional impressions of completely edentulous arches in vivo. Edentulous digital impressions by IOS demonstrated poor accuracy in peripheral areas with mobile tissues, such as the soft palate, vestibular sulcus, and sublingual area.

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the in vitro accuracy of dental implant impressions taken using digitally coded healing abutments (CHAs) compared with impressions taken with conventional techniques (CI) and/or within the CHA group at varying degrees of angulations for multiple implant units. Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic electronic search in the MedLine, PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Some of the employed key terms, combined with the help of Boolean operators, were: \"digitally coded healing abutments\", \"encode healing abutment\", \"dental implants\", \"impression accuracy\", \"digital impression\", and \"conventional impression\". Publication dates ranged from January 2010 to November 2022. A total of 7 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 6 studies compared the accuracy of CHA with conventional pick-up impression techniques, and one study only used CHAs at different angulations and heights to compare accuracy within the group. The results were divided into Group A (elastomeric impression of CHA) and Group B (CHA + Intraoral scanner). According to the results of this systematic review, elastomeric impression of CHA performed poorly when compared to CI for multiple implants, although an intraoral scan of CHA appears to be more accurate. Within the CHA group, the angulation and visible height of CHA play a significant role in impression accuracy. However, more studies are needed before CHA can be recommended for all non-parallel multiple implant-supported restorations.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of implant scan body (ISB) design (height, diameter, geometry, material, and retention system) on the accuracy of digital implant scans.
METHODS: A literature search was completed in five databases: PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, World of Science, and Cochrane. A manual search was also conducted. Studies reporting the evaluation of ISB design on the accuracy of digital scans obtained by using IOSs were included. Two investigators evaluated the studies independently by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal. A third examiner was consulted to resolve any lack of consensus. Articles were classified based on the ISB features of height, geometry, material, and retention system.
RESULTS: Twenty articles were included. Among the reviewed studies, 11 investigations analyzed the influence of different ISB geometries, 1 study assessed the impact of ISB diameter, 4 studies investigated the effect of ISB splinting, 2 articles evaluated ISB height, and 2 studies focused on the effect of ISB material on scan accuracy. In addition, 8 studies involved ISBs fabricated with different materials (1- and 2-piece polyetheretherketone and 1-piece titanium ISBs), and all of the reviewed articles tested screw-retained ISBs, except for 3 in vitro studies.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings did not enable concrete conclusions regarding the optimal ISB design, whether there is a relationship between IOS technology and a specific ISB design, or the clinical condition that maximizes intraoral scanning accuracy. Research efforts are needed to identify the optimal ISB design and its possible relationship with the IOS selected for acquiring intraoral digital implant scans.

Three-dimensional(3D) reconstruction technology is a method of transforming real goals into mathematical models consistent with computer logic expressions and has been widely used in dentistry, but the lack of review and summary leads to confusion and misinterpretation of information. The purpose of this review is to provide the first comprehensive link and scientific analysis of 3D reconstruction technology and dentistry to bridge the information bias between these two disciplines.
The IEEE Xplore and PubMed databases were used for rigorous searches based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, supplemented by Google Academic as a complementary tool to retrieve all literature up to February 2023. We conducted a narrative review focusing on the empirical findings of the application of 3D reconstruction technology to dentistry.
We classify the technologies applied to dentistry according to their principles and summarize the different characteristics of each category, as well as the different application scenarios determined by these characteristics of each technique. In addition, we indicate their development prospects and worthy research directions in the field of dentistry, from individual techniques to the overall discipline of 3D reconstruction technology, respectively.
Researchers and clinicians should make different decisions on the choice of 3D reconstruction technology based on different objectives. The main trend in the future development of 3D reconstruction technology is the joint application of technology.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate accuracy, scanning time, and patient satisfaction of photogrammetry (PG) systems for recording the 3D position of dental implants.
METHODS: A literature search was completed in five databases: PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, World of Science, and Cochrane. A manual search was also conducted. Studies reporting the use of commercially available PG systems were included. Two investigators evaluated the studies independently by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal. A third examiner was consulted to resolve any lack of consensus.
RESULTS: A total of 14 articles were included: 3 in vivo, 6 in vitro, and 6 case report manuscripts. One clinical study evaluated trueness, another one tested precision, and the third one assessed impression time and patient and operator satisfaction. All the in vitro studies evaluated the trueness and precision of a PG system. Additionally, all the reviewed studies investigated completely edentulous conditions with multiple implants. The number of placed implants per arch among the reviewed clinical studies varied from 4 to 8 implants, while the number of implants placed on the reference casts included 4, 5, 6, or 8 implants. Not all the studies compared the accuracy of PG systems with conventional impression methods, using intraoral scanners as additional experimental groups. For the PIC system, trueness ranged from 10 to 49 μm and precision ranged from 5 to 65 μm. For the iCam4D system, trueness ranged from 24 to 77 μm and the precision value ranged from 2 to 203 μm.
CONCLUSIONS: PG systems may provide a reliable alternative for acquiring the 3D position of dental implants. However, this conclusion should be interpreted carefully, as one study reported a mean precision value of one PG system higher than the clinically acceptable discrepancy. Lower scanning time and higher patient and operator satisfaction have been reported when compared with conventional techniques. Further studies are needed to increase the evidence regarding the accuracy, scanning time, and patient and operator satisfaction of the commercially available PG systems.

UNASSIGNED: This systematic review aimed to investigate the accuracy, reproducibility, scanning time, patient comfort, and operator experience of various commercially available intraoral scanners (IOS) in orthodontics.
UNASSIGNED: An elaborate and extensive search of literature in the PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central databases was performed using various relevant keywords.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 3256 articles were obtained from all the databases, 35 studies were included. The accuracy of IOS was controversial compared to that of conventional impression techniques. Digital scanning demonstrated satisfactory to excellent reproducibility, shorter scanning time, and improved patient comfort compared with conventional techniques.
UNASSIGNED: IOS are time-efficient, comfortable for patients, and simple to use with a learning curve for the operator. These methods are sufficiently accurate for treatment planning and aligner fabrication in orthodontics.

In addition to their recognized value for obtaining 3D digital dental models, intraoral scanners (IOSs) have recently been proven to be promising tools for oral health diagnostics. In this work, the most recent literature on IOSs was reviewed with a focus on their applications as detection systems of oral cavity pathologies. Those applications of IOSs falling in the general area of detection systems for oral health diagnostics (e.g., caries, dental wear, periodontal diseases, oral cancer) were included, while excluding those works mainly focused on 3D dental model reconstruction for implantology, orthodontics, or prosthodontics. Three major scientific databases, namely Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science, were searched and explored by three independent reviewers. The synthesis and analysis of the studies was carried out by considering the type and technical features of the IOS, the study objectives, and the specific diagnostic applications. From the synthesis of the twenty-five included studies, the main diagnostic fields where IOS technology applies were highlighted, ranging from the detection of tooth wear and caries to the diagnosis of plaques, periodontal defects, and other complications. This shows how additional diagnostic information can be obtained by combining the IOS technology with other radiographic techniques. Despite some promising results, the clinical evidence regarding the use of IOSs as oral health probes is still limited, and further efforts are needed to validate the diagnostic potential of IOSs over conventional tools.

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.

In the present era when interest in digital dentistry is increasing, the published literature is still confusing about whether digital impression provides similar accuracy as provided by a conventional impression for the fabrication of a single-unit ceramic crown. The aim of the study was to systematically review the in vivo studies comparing marginal, axial, and occlusal fit of single-unit ceramic crowns fabricated after digital impressions with the ones fabricated after conventional impressions. The PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane online databases were searched for studies comparing the digital impression technique with the conventional technique for single-unit ceramic crowns. Data extraction was done for the year of publication, type of study, country, number of patients, impression system (intraoral scanner [IOS] or conventional impression), marginal fit, axial fit, and occlusal fit. Ten studies were included for meta-analysis regarding the discrepancy in marginal fit, axial fit, and occlusal fit. The digital impression proved to be better than the conventional impression. The mean difference for marginal fit was 6.54 μm (heterogeneity P < 0.00001, I2 = 93%), for axial fit 24.69 μm (heterogeneity P = 0.34, I2 = 11%), and for occlusal fit 6.99 μm (heterogeneity P = 0.03, I2 = 59%). The results of meta-analyses suggest that there is no significant difference between the impression systems (marginally favoring digital impression). The digital impression technique provided better marginal and internal fit of single-unit ceramic crowns than the conventional impression technique. The digital workflow using IOS provided a clinically acceptable marginal fit for single-unit crowns.

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the accuracy of the marginal and internal fit of lithium disilicate crowns and onlays fabricated by conventional and digital methods.
METHODS: An electronic search was carried out on MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library between 2010 and 2021.
METHODS: Seventeen studies published between 2014 & 2021 were included, of which thirteen were in vitro laboratory-based studies; three were in vivo clinical studies and one randomised controlled trial.
METHODS: Twelve studies focused on the marginal fit, five focused on the marginal and internal fit. Five studies found that the marginal and internal fit of crowns were more accurate using digital techniques. Five studies noted that there was no difference using either technique and two noted that conventional methods had a more accurate marginal fit.
CONCLUSIONS: Digital techniques were comparable to conventional methods in terms of accuracy although there was insufficient evidence to indicate that one technique was more accurate than the other with respect to Lithium Disilicate restorations.
CONCLUSIONS: Digital impressions are reliable and viable alternatives for clinicians compared to conventional impression techniques when restoring teeth with lithium disilicate restorations.