Clinical Accuracy of Intraoral Scanner Impressions Compared with Conventional Impressions in Fixed Partial Prostheses: A Systematic Review: Accuracy of Intraoral vs Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prostheses

Sheema Shakir; Safa Nawaz; Ghazala Wisal; Ghazala Suleman; Muhammad Waqas; Zehra Iqtidar

doi:10.54393/pjhs.v7i4.3737

Authors

Sheema Shakir Department of Prosthodontics, Khyber College of Dentistry, Peshawar, Pakistan
Safa Nawaz Department of Prosthodontics, Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad, Pakistan
Ghazala Wisal Department of Prosthodontics, Khyber College of Dentistry, Peshawar, Pakistan
Ghazala Suleman Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Atta, Saudi Arabia
Muhammad Waqas Department of Prosthodontics, Shaida Islam Medical Complex, Lodhrān, Pakistan
Zehra Iqtidar Department of Prosthodontics, Faryal Dental College, Lahore, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v7i4.3737

Keywords:

Intraoral Scanner, Digital Impression, Fixed Partial Prosthesis, Prosthodontics, Elastomeric Impression, CAD-CAM Dentistry, Clinical Accuracy

Abstract

The use of digital impression systems in prosthodontics has gained greater acceptance, but issues surrounding their clinical accuracy compared to traditional elastomeric impressions still exist, particularly for fixed partial prostheses. This comparison is crucial as many practices transition to digital workflows. Objectives: The primary objective of this review was to evaluate the clinical accuracy of intraoral scanner (IOS) impressions versus conventional impressions for fixed partial prostheses. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library for comparative clinical studies published between January 2018 and January 2024. Eligible studies included human trials comparing IOS and conventional impressions for tooth- or implant-supported fixed prostheses. Methodological quality was assessed using a modified QUADAS-2 tool. Results: Fifteen clinical studies met the inclusion criteria. Quantitative analysis revealed marginal gaps for digital workflows ranging from 30 to 90 μm, comparable to the 35–100 μm range observed for conventional methods. Digital impressions demonstrated superior time efficiency and patient comfort. For short-span restorations, IOS accuracy was equivalent to conventional methods; however, conventional techniques showed slightly better stability in long-span implant cases. Conclusions: Current clinical evidence suggests that intraoral scanners provide accuracy comparable to conventional impressions for most fixed partial prostheses, with added benefits in efficiency and patient experience. While caution is advised for complex full-arch cases, IOS can be reliably integrated into routine practice.

References

Radi IA and Elkhashab MA. Intraoral Scanning and Conventional Impression May Have Similar Time Efficiency for Complete Coverage Crowns and Three-Unit Fixed Tooth-Supported Prostheses. Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice. 2023 Sep; 23(3): 101894. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2023.101894. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2023.101894

Joensahakij N, Serichetaphongse P, Chengprapakorn W. The Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital (Intraoral Scanner or Photogrammetry) Impression Techniques in Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Systematic Review. Evidence-Based Dentistry. 2024 Dec; 25(4): 216-217. doi: 10.1038/s41432-024-01045-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01045-z

Morsy N, El Kateb M, Azer A, Fathalla S. Fit of Zirconia Fixed Partial Dentures Fabricated from Conventional Impressions and Digital Scans: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2023 Jul; 130(1): 28-34. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.08.025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.08.025

Floriani F, Lopes GC, Cabrera A, Duarte W, Zoidis P, Oliveira D et al. Linear Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners for Full-Arch Impressions of Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. European journal of dentistry. 2023 Oct; 17(04): 964-973. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1758798. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1758798

Sallorenzo A and Gómez-Polo M. Comparative Study of the Accuracy of an Implant Intraoral Scanner and that of a Conventional Intraoral Scanner for Complete-Arch Fixed Dental Prostheses. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2022 Nov; 128(5): 1009-1016. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.032. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.032

Afrashtehfar KI, Alnakeb NA, Assery MK. Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners Versus Traditional Impressions: A Rapid Umbrella Review. Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice. 2022 Sep; 22(3): 101719. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101719. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101719

Bandiaky ON, Le Bars P, Gaudin A, Hardouin JB, Cheraud-Carpentier M, Mbodj EB et al. Comparative Assessment of Complete-Coverage, Fixed Tooth-Supported Prostheses Fabricated from Digital Scans or Conventional Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2022 Jan; 127(1): 71-79. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.017

Vieira FL, Carnietto M, Cerqueira Filho JR, Bordini EA, Oliveira HF, Pegoraro TA et al. Intraoral Scanning Versus Conventional Methods for Obtaining Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Applied Sciences. 2025 Jan; 15(2): 533. doi: 10.3390/app15020533. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app15020533

Park JS, Alshehri YF, Kruger E, Villata L. Accuracy of Digital Versus Conventional Implant Impressions in Partially Dentate Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Dentistry. 2025 Jun: 105918. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105918. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105918

Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Fehmer V, Hämmerle CH, Benic GI. Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Digital and Conventional Workflows for The Fabrication of Zirconia-Ceramic Fixed Partial Dentures. Part I: Time Efficiency of Complete-Arch Digital Scans Versus Conventional Impressions. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2019 Jan; 121(1): 69-75. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.04.021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.04.021

Benic GI, Sailer I, Zeltner M, Gütermann JN, Özcan M, Mühlemann S. Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Digital and Conventional Workflows for the Fabrication of Zirconia-Ceramic Fixed Partial Dentures. Part III: Marginal and Internal Fit. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2019 Mar; 121(3): 426-431. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.05.014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.05.014

Cappare P, Sannino G, Minoli M, Montemezzi P, Ferrini F. Conventional Versus Digital Impressions for Full Arch Screw-Retained Maxillary Rehabilitations: A Randomized Clinical Trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019 Mar; 16(5): 829. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16050829. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050829

Pan S, Guo D, Zhou Y, Jung RE, Hämmerle CH, Mühlemann S. Time Efficiency and Quality of Outcomes in a Model‐Free Digital Workflow Using Digital Impression Immediately After Implant Placement: A Double‐Blind Self‐Controlled Clinical Trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2019 Jul; 30(7): 617-626. doi: 10.1111/clr.13447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13447

Dan Ni GU, Yu Shu LI, Shao Xia PA, Peng Fei WANG BW, Jian Zhang LI et al. Clinical Efficiency and Patient Preference of Immediate Digital Impression After Implant Placement for a Single Implant-Supported Crown. Chinese Journal of Dental Research. 2019; 22(1): 21-28.

Haddadi Y, Bahrami G, Isidor F. Accuracy of Crowns Based on Digital Intraoral Scanning Compared to Conventional Impression—A Split-Mouth Randomised Clinical Study. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2019 Nov; 23(11): 4043-4050. doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-02840-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02840-0

Rutkunas V, Gedrimiene A, Adaskevicius R, Al-Haj Husain N, Özcan M. Comparison of the Clinical Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Dental Implant Impressions. The European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry. 2020 Nov; 28(4): 173-181.

Patel C, Barot GN, Patel MC, Nath KJ, Patel SP, Patel DK et al. Accuracy and Comfort in Digital and Conventional Impression in Pediatric Dental Patients: A Randomized Comparative Study. Cureus. 2025 Jan; 17(1). 1-12. doi: 10.7759/cureus.76882. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.76882

Cheng CW, Ye SY, Chien CH, Chen CJ, Papaspyridakos P, Ko CC. Randomized Clinical Trial of a Conventional and a Digital Workflow for the Fabrication of Interim Crowns: An Evaluation of Treatment Efficiency, Fit, and The Effect of Clinician Experience. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2021 Jan; 125(1): 73-81. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.08.006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.08.006

Derksen W, Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D. Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Clinical Adjustment Times of CAD/CAM Screw‐Retained Posterior Crowns on Titanium-Base Abutments Created with Digital or Conventional Impressions. One‐Year Follow‐Up. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2021 Aug; 32(8): 962-970. doi: 10.1111/clr.13790. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13790

Gogushev K and Abadjiev M. Conventional Vs Digital Impression Technique for Manufacturing of Three-Unit Zirconia Bridges: Clinical Time Efficiency. Journal of the Indian Medical Association. 2021 Jun; 27(2): 3765-3771. doi: 10.5272/jimab.2021272.3765. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5272/jimab.2021272.3765

Hashemi AM, Hashemi HM, Siadat H, Shamshiri A, Afrashtehfar KI, Alikhasi M. Fully Digital Versus Conventional Workflows for Fabricating Posterior Three-Unit Implant-Supported Reconstructions: A Prospective Crossover Clinical Trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022 Sep; 19(18): 11456. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191811456. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811456

Lee SJ, Jamjoom FZ, Le T, Radics A, Gallucci GO. A Clinical Study Comparing Digital Scanning and Conventional Impression Making for Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Crossover Clinical Trial. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2022 Jul; 128(1): 42-48. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.043. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.043

Karasan D, Sailer I, Lee H, Demir F, Zarauz C, Akca K. Occlusal Adjustment Of 3-Unit Tooth-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses Fabricated with Complete-Digital And-Analog Workflows: A Crossover Clinical Trial. Journal of Dentistry. 2023 Jan; 128: 104365. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104365. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104365

Elashry WY, Elsheikh MM, Elsheikh AM. Evaluation of the Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Implant Impression Techniques in Bilateral Distal Extension Cases: A Randomized Clinical Trial. BioMed Center Oral Health. 2024 Jul; 24(1): 764. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04495-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04495-0

Cao R, Zhang S, Li L, Qiu P, Xu H, Cao Y. Accuracy of Intraoral Scanning Versus Conventional Impressions for Partial Edentulous Patients with Maxillary Defects. Scientific Reports. 2023 Oct; 13(1): 16773. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-44033-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-44033-6

Pachiou A, Zervou E, Sykaras N, Tortopidis D, Ioannidis A, Jung RE et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes of Digital Versus Conventional Impressions for Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2025 Sep; 15(9): 427. doi: 10.3390/jpm15090427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm15090427

Lim JH, Mangal U, Nam NE, Choi SH, Shim JS, Kim JE. A Comparison of the Accuracy of Different Dental Restorative Materials Between Intraoral Scanning and Conventional Impression-Taking: An in Vitro Study. Materials. 2021 Apr; 14(8): 2060. doi: 10.3390/ma14082060. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14082060

Park JS, Lim YJ, Kim B, Kim MJ, Kwon HB. Clinical Evaluation of Time Efficiency and Fit Accuracy of Lithium Disilicate Single Crowns Between Conventional and Digital Impression. Materials. 2020 Nov; 13(23): 5467. doi: 10.3390/ma13235467. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13235467

Lyu M, Di P, Lin Y, Jiang X. Accuracy of Impressions for Multiple Implants: A Comparative Study of Digital and Conventional Techniques. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2022 Nov 1;128(5):1017-23. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.016

Matheel AR, Abdullah JY, Elmarhoumy B, Johari Y, Ariffin A, Husein A. Digital Comparative Analysis in Three Dimensions of Two Impression Techniques for the Bilateral Distal Extension of Partially Edentulous Mandibular Arches: A Pilot Clinical Study. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2024 May: 1-8.

Alfaraj A, Alqudaihi F, Khurshid Z, Qadiri O, Lin WS. Comparative Analyses of Accuracy Between Digital and Conventional Impressions for Complete‐Arch Implant‐Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses—A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2025 Jul. doi: 10.1111/jopr.14094. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.14094

Pesce P, Nicolini P, Caponio VC, Zecca PA, Canullo L, Isola G et al. Accuracy of Full-Arch Intraoral Scans Versus Conventional Impression: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis and a Proposal to Standardise the Analysis of the Accuracy. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024 Dec; 14(1): 71. doi: 10.3390/jcm14010071. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14010071

Kahya Karaca S, Akca K. Comparison of Conventional and Digital Impression Approaches for Edentulous Maxilla: Clinical Study. BioMed Center Oral Health. 2024 Nov; 24(1): 1378. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-05151-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-05151-3

Pawar OY, Patil SL, Redekar RS, Patil SB, Lim S, Tarwal NL. Strategic Development of Piezoelectric Nanogenerator and Biomedical Applications. Applied Sciences. 2023 Feb; 13(5): 2891. doi: 10.3390/app13052891. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app13052891

Rafiq N, Rasheed B, Naz N, Al Qamari N, Azmatullah U, Rahim A. Utility of Unenhanced Ct Kub: Beyond Urolithiasis. Annals of Abbasi Shaheed Hospital and Karachi Medical and Dental College. 2023 Mar; 28(1): 45-52.