Table 4.
Characteristics of included clinical studies.
| Author Year | Country | Sample Size | Intra Oral Scanner | Laboratory Scanner | Jaws | Conventional Impression Type | Scanned Surface | Accuracy Evaluation Method | Aligning Software | Mean Difference (mm) | Mean RMS and Standard Deviation (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D’Arienzo et al., 2018 [20] | Italy | 4 | Trios 3 | NR | Maxilla | Dental cast obtained from an alginate impression. | Complete edentulous jaw. | Superimposition against 3D model obtained from lab scanner. | 3D Reshaper 2017 | 0.219 to 0.347 | NR |
| Chebib et al., 2019 [21] | Switzerland | 12 | Trios 3 | Iscan D103i (Imetric 3D) |
Maxilla | ZOE impression (reference scan). Alginate PVS. PVS relined with ZOE (PVSM). |
Complete impression surface and five different areas. Midpalatal raphe, peripheral border, inner seal, residual ridge, PPS |
Superimposition against 3D model obtained from lab scanner. | Geomagic Control X64 | NR | 0.70 ± 0.18 |
| Jung et al., 2019 [22] |
Republic of Korea | 5 | CS3500 Carestream |
D700, 3Shape | Maxilla and mandible | Dental cast obtained from border-molded PVS impression. | maxilla. Midpalatal raphe, hard palate, residual ridge, soft palate. Mandible: residual ridge, buccal shelf. |
Superimposition against 3D model obtained from lab scanner. | Geomagic control 2014 | Maxilla—0.09 ± 0.08 Mandible—0.04 ± 0.05 |
NR |
| Lo Russo et al., 2020 [23] |
Italy | 10 maxilla and 10 mandibles | Trios 3 | NR | Maxilla and mandible | Polysulfide impression. | Complete edentulous jaw. | Superimposition against 3D model obtained from IOS. | Geomagic wrap 2017 | Maxilla—0.11 ± 0.09 Mandibular—0.26 ± 0.29 (Trimmed scans) Maxilla—0.03 ± 0.03 Mandibular—0.02 ± 0.07 |
NR |
| Hack et al., 2020 [24] | USA | 27 maxilla and 5 mandibles | Lava COS True Definition (3M ESPE) |
D700 version 2013 3Shape | Maxilla and mandible | Border-molded PVS impression, stone cast obtained from an impression. | Complete edentulous jaws. | Conventional impressions and the resulting stone casts were digitized and superimposed over the optical impressions. | Geomagic Qualify 2013 | Overall—0.363 ± 0.143 Maxilla—0.308 ± 0.050 Mandible—0.532 ± 0.119 |
NR |
| Kalberer et al., 2020 [25] | Switzerland | 12 | Trios 3 | Iscan D103i (Imetric 3D) |
Maxilla | Border-molded ZOE impression. Alginate PVS. PVS relined with ZOE. |
Anterior region, buccal region, and PPS region. | Three selected reference points to superimpose the impression. Only border extension (vertical) and seal (horizontal) were assessed. |
Custom-made 3D comparison software | NR | Overall vertical discrepancy 1.95 ± 0.76 Overall horizontal discrepancy 2.23 ± 0.55 |
| Chebib et al., 2022 [26] |
Switzerland | 20 | Trios 3 | Iscan D103i (Imetric 3D) |
Maxilla | Scan of definitive cast obtained from border-molded ZOE impression. | Complete edentulous jaws. | Superimposition against 3D model obtained from lab scanner. | Geomagic control X 2020 | NR | 0.45 ± 0.11 |
| Al hamad 2023 [27] | Jordan | 21 | Trios 4 | Ceramill® map400 | Maxilla and mandible | Border-molded PVS impression. | Complete edentulous jaws. | Superimposition against 3D model obtained from lab scanner. | Geomagic Control X; 2020 | NR | Maxillary 0.92 ± 0.24 Mandibular 1.38 ± 0.29 |
PVS: polyvinyl-siloxane, IOS: intraoral scanner, ZOE: zinc oxide eugenol impression material, RMS: root mean square deviation. PPS: posterior palatal seal, NR: not reported.