Digital versus conventional impressions for full-coverage restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Area of Science:

• Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry
• Digital Dentistry

Background:

• Full-coverage restorations are crucial in restorative dentistry.
• Digital impressions (DIs) offer a modern alternative to conventional impression techniques.
• Assessing the clinical performance of DIs is essential for widespread adoption.

Purpose of the Study:

• To systematically review and compare the survival rates of full-coverage restorations fabricated using digital impressions versus conventional impressions.
• To evaluate secondary outcomes including marginal fit, internal fit, and occlusal/interproximal contacts.

Main Methods:

• A systematic literature search was conducted across multiple databases without restrictions on publication type, date, or language.
• Ten clinical trials met the inclusion criteria for the review.
• A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to synthesize data.

Main Results:

• No studies directly compared the survival of full-coverage restorations between digital and conventional impression techniques.
• Marginal gap differences averaged -9.0 μm and internal gap differences averaged -15.6 μm, suggesting similar fit.
• Substantial heterogeneity was observed in studies assessing internal gap (I² = 72%, P = .003).

Conclusions:

• Robust conclusions regarding restoration survival with DIs cannot be drawn due to a lack of comparative research.
• Low-quality evidence indicates similar marginal and internal fit for both impression techniques.
• Very low to insufficient evidence exists for occlusal and interproximal contacts, necessitating cautious interpretation and further practice-based trials.