Amit Gaikwad^1,*; Amruta Joshi²; Olavo Barbosa de Oliveira-Neto³; Ashvini Padhye²; Jyoti Nadgere¹; Sabita Ram⁴; Seema Yadav⁵

¹Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge; ²Periodontology, MGM Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, India; ³Human anatomy division, Federal University of Alagoas, Institute of Biological Sciences, Alagoas, Brazil; ⁴Director Research, MGM Institute of Health Sciences, Navi Mumbai, India; ⁵Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, SEGi University, Kota damansara, Malaysia

Background: An overview enables the clinicians to select an evidence-based decision beneficial for patients. Moreover, it recognizes the paucity in the available literature and the need for future improvements. At present conflicting data is reported on the accuracy of implant impression techniques that may risk a clinical decision making process. Hence, there is a need to synthesize the findings from the published reviews that will enable clinicians to choose the superior technique for their patients.

Aim/Hypothesis: The purpose of the present overview was to summarize the evidence and answer the following focused research question: “What is the difference in accuracy of different implant impression techniques for partially and completely edentulous arches?”

Material and Methods: The current overview was performed in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Conducting Reviews. The protocol of the current review has been registered in the PROSPERO database with the registration number:CRD42021255273. A comprehensive search was performed up to April 30, 2021 independently by 2 review authors from 4 databases including the Cochrane Oral Health Review, Medline/PubMed, Lilacs, and Science Direct. Moreover, hand and grey literature search was performed to identify further potential reviews. Only English language based systematic reviews with and without meta-analyses evaluating different dental implant impression techniques were included. The outcomes assessed were accuracy, time efficacy, and patient preference. Eligible reviews were screened and assessed for the qualitative analysis. The quality assessment was evaluated by using the R-AMSTAR tool. Moreover, the degree of overlap of primary studies was assessed as the corrected covered area proposed by Pieper et al.

Results: Out of 328 articles identified after the comprehensive search, 53 articles were selected for the full text analysis. At last, 20 systematic reviews and 8 meta-analyses published between the year 2008 and 2021, involving 42 clinical trials and 203 laboratory studies were included for the qualitative analysis. Four of 5 reviews, reported that the digital impressions are more accurate in partially edentulous arches involving 3 or less implants. Whereas in full arch situations involving multiple implants, 8 of 12 reviews favored direct splinted impression technique in term of accuracy. Of 8 included reviews, 6 of each favored digital impressions in terms of time efficacy and patient preference. Overall, the methodologic quality assessed by using the R-AMSTAR tool was moderate (mean; 26.7 ± 5.5) with slight overlap of primary studies (CCA; 5.23%). To summarize, 3 reviews presented a high-quality score, 20 reviews presented moderate score, and 5 reviews presented a low-quality score.

Conclusion and Clinical implications: Digital impressions are more accurate as compared with the conventional impressions for partially edentulous arches involving 3 or less implants. However, the accuracy of full arch digital impressions involving multiple implants is not satisfactory and need significant improvements. Moreover, the published data has moderate methodological quality, thus emphasizing the need for future studies following stringent guidelines and robust methodology to substantiate the findings of the overview.

Disclosure of Interest: None Declared

Keywords: accuracy, dental implants, systematic Review

阿米特·盖夸德^1,* ; 阿姆鲁塔·乔希² ; 奥拉沃·巴博萨·德·奥利维拉-内托³ ; 阿什维尼 Padhye ² ; 乔蒂·纳杰尔¹ ; 萨比塔拉姆⁴ ; 西玛亚达夫⁵

¹口腔修复和牙冠与牙桥；²牙周病学，米高梅牙科学院和医院，印度新孟买；³人体解剖学部，阿拉戈斯联邦大学，生物科学研究所，巴西阿拉戈斯；⁴印度新孟买米高梅健康科学研究所研究主任；⁵牙周病学，牙科学院，世纪大学，哥打白沙罗，马来西亚

背景：概述使临床医生能够选择对患者有益的循证决策。此外，它认识到可用文献的缺乏和未来改进的需要。目前，关于种植体印模技术准确性的报告数据相互矛盾，这可能会给临床决策过程带来风险。因此，需要综合已发表评论的结果，使临床医生能够为他们的患者选择更好的技术。

目的/假设：本综述的目的是总结证据并回答以下重点研究问题：“不同种植体印模技术对于部分和完全缺牙牙弓的准确性有何不同？”

材料与方法：当前的概述是根据 Cochrane Handbook for Conducting Reviews 进行的。本次审查的方案已在PROSPERO数据库中注册，注册号：CRD42021255273。截至 2021 年 4 月 30 日，由来自 4 个数据库（包括 Cochrane Oral Health Review、Medline/PubMed、Lilacs 和 Science Direct）的 2 位综述作者独立进行了全面检索。此外，还进行了手工和灰色文献搜索，以确定进一步的潜在评论。仅包括基于英语的系统评价，包括评估不同牙种植体印模技术的荟萃分析和非荟萃分析。评估的结果包括准确性、时间有效性和患者偏好。筛选和评估符合条件的评论以进行定性分析。质量评估使用 R-AMSTAR 工具进行评估。此外，主要研究的重叠程度被评估为 Pieper 等人提出的修正覆盖区域。

结果：综合检索确定的328篇文章中，选取53篇进行全文分析。最后，2008年至2021年间发表的20篇系统评价和8篇荟萃分析，涉及42项临床试验和203项实验室研究被纳入定性分析。5 篇评论中的 4 篇报告称，在涉及 3 个或更少种植体的部分缺牙牙弓中，数字印模更准确。而在涉及多个种植体的全牙弓情况下，12 篇评论中有 8 篇在准确性方面支持直接夹板印模技术。在 8 篇评论中，有 6 篇评论在时间有效性和患者偏好方面都偏爱数字印象。总体而言，使用 R-AMSTAR 工具评估的方法学质量中等（平均；26.7 ± 5.5），与主要研究有轻微重叠（CCA；5.23%）。

结论和临床意义：与涉及 3 个或更少种植体的部分缺牙牙弓的传统印模相比，数字印模更准确。然而，涉及多个种植体的全牙弓数字印模的准确性并不令人满意，需要进行重大改进。此外，已发表的数据具有中等方法学质量，因此强调未来研究需要遵循严格的指导方针和稳健的方法来证实概述的结果。

利益披露：无申报

关键词：准确性，种植牙，系统评价