Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

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)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective

This systematic review aimed to compare the accuracy of conventional impression techniques with digital methods, including intraoral scanners or photogrammetry, in full-arch implant-supported prostheses.

Materials and methods

An electronic search of the MEDLINE (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane) databases was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review included in vitro studies published between January 2000 to January 2024 that compared the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impression techniques. Descriptive analyses were performed using the data extracted from each study.

Results

Twenty-three in vitro studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, eighteen utilized intraoral scanners and five employed photogrammetry. Twelve studies concluded that digital techniques were more accurate than conventional methods, six found conventional techniques to be more accurate, and five reported comparable accuracy between the two methods.

Conclusions

Within limitation of the included studies, digital implant impression technique were generally more accurate than conventional methods for full-arch implant-supported prostheses. This review suggests that future research should use perform standardized methodologies and report consistent accuracy outcomes to enable the inclusion of more studies in a meta-analysis.

Trial registration

The study was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023397916).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data supporting this article can be made available by the corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. Buzayan MM, Yunus NB. Passive fit in screw retained multi-unit implant prosthesis understanding and achieving: a review of the literature. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014;14:16–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-013-0343-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ma T, Nicholls JI, Rubenstein JE. Tolerance measurements of various implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12:371–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Amornvit P, Rokaya D, Sanohkan S. Comparison of accuracy of current ten intraoral scanners. Biomed Res Int. 2021:2673040. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2673040

  4. Kaya G, Bilmenoglu C. Accuracy of 14 intraoral scanners for the All-on-4 treatment concept: a comparative in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2022;14:388–98. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2022.14.6.388

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Róth I, Czigola A, Fehér D, Vitai V, Joós-Kovács GL, Hermann P, et al. Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22:140 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02176-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kosago P, Ungurawasaporn C, Kukiattrakoon B. Comparison of the accuracy between conventional and various digital implant impressions for an implant-supported mandibular complete arch-fixed prosthesis: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2023;32:616–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ma B, Yue X, Sun Y, Peng L, Geng W. Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21:636 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-02005-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee SJ, Kim SW, Lee JJ, Cheong CW. Comparison of intraoral and extraoral digital scanners: evaluation of surface topography and precision. Dent J (Basel). 2020;8:52 https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8020052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Borbola D, Berkei G, Simon B, Romanszky L, Sersli G, DeFee M, et al. In vitro comparison of five desktop scanners and an industrial scanner in the evaluation of an intraoral scanner accuracy. J Dent. 2023;129:104391 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ke Y, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Chen H, Sun Y. Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated landmarks in the mandible: An in vitro study. J Dent. 2023;135:104561 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104561

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:1360–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12994

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Önöral Ö, Kurtulmus-Yılmaz S, Keskin A, Ozan O. Influence of the angulation and insertion depth of implants on the 3D trueness of conventional and digital impressions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2022;37:1186–94. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9907

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27:465–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 5725-1:2023 - Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results – Part 1: general principles and definitions. 2023. Available at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:5725:-1:ed-2:v1:en:en.html. (accessed October 2023).

  15. Marghalani A, Weber HP, Finkelman M, Kudara Y, El Rafie K, Papaspyridakos P. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119:574–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rutkūnas V, Gečiauskaitė A, Jegelevičius D, Vaitiekūnas M. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10:101–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rutkunas V, Gedrimiene A, Adaskevicius R, Al-Haj Husain N, Özcan M. Comparison of the clinical accuracy of digital and conventional dental implant impressions. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2020;28:173–81. https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_02028Rutkunas09

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26:715–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Albanchez-González MI, Brinkmann JC, Peláez-Rico J, López-Suárez C, Rodríguez-Alonso V, Suárez-García MJ. Accuracy of digital dental implants impression taking with intraoral scanners compared with conventional impression techniques: a systematic review of in vitro studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:2026 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042026

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Alikhasi M, Alsharbaty MHM, Moharrami M. Digital implant impression technique accuracy: a systematic review. Implant Dent. 2017;26:929–35. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang YJ, Shi JY, Qian SJ, Qiao SC, Lai HC. Accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions taken using intraoral scanners and related variables: a systematic review. Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2021;14:157–79.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Menini M, Setti P, Pera F, Pera P, Pesce P. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22:1253–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2217-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Papaspyridakos P, Vazouras K, Chen YW, Kotina E, Natto Z, Kang K, et al. Digital vs conventional implant impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont. 2020;29:660–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Drancourt N, Auduc C, Mouget A, Mouminoux J, Auroy P, Veyrune JL, et al. Accuracy of conventional and digital impressions for full-arch implant-supported prostheses: an in vitro study. J Pers Med. 2023;13:832 https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13050832

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Tan S, Tan MY, Wong KM, Maria R, Tan KBC. Comparison of 3D positional accuracy of implant analogs in printed resin models versus conventional stone casts: Effect of implant angulation. J Prosthodont. 2023;1-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13647

  26. Yang B, Mallett S, Takwoingi Y, Davenport CF, Hyde CJ, Whiting PF, et al. QUADAS-C: a tool for assessing risk of bias in comparative diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174:1592–9. https://doi.org/10.7326/M21-2234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Albayrak B, Sukotjo C, Wee AG, Korkmaz İH, Bayındır F. Three-dimensional accuracy of conventional versus digital complete arch implant impressions. J Prosthodont. 2021;30:163–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzade M. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: effect of implant angulation and connection type. Int J Dent. 2018:3761750. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3761750

  29. Conejo J, Yoo TH, Atria PJ, Fraiman H, Blatz MB. In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings. J Prosthet Dent. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.12.012

  30. Farhan FA, Sahib AJ, Fatalla AA. Comparison of the accuracy of intraoral digital impression system and conventional impression techniques for multiple implants in the full-arch edentulous mandible. J Clin Exp Dent. 2021;13:e487–e92. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.57926

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Jeong M, Ishikawa-Nagai S, Lee JD, Lee SJ. Accuracy of impression scan bodies for complete arch fixed implant-supported restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.11.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ribeiro P, Herrero-Climent M, Díaz-Castro C, Ríos-Santos JV, Padrós R, Mur JG, et al. Accuracy of implant casts generated with conventional and digital impressions-an in vitro study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15:1599 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081599

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Tohme H, Lawand G, Chmielewska M, Makhzoume J. Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;129:354–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Blanco-Plard A, Hernandez A, Pino F, Vargas N, Rivas-Tumanyan S, Elias A. 3D accuracy of a conventional method versus three digital scanning strategies for completely edentulous maxillary implant impressions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2023;38:1211–9. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.10266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Huang R, Liu Y, Huang B, Zhang C, Chen Z, Li Z. Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: an in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020;31:625–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13598

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kim KR, Seo KY, Kim S. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;122:543–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Shaikh M, Lakha T, Kheur S, Qamri B, Kheur M. Do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to conventional impressions? An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2022;22:398–404. https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_52_22

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Revilla-León M, Att W, Özcan M, Rubenstein J. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125:470–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. D’Haese R, Vrombaut T, Roeykens H, Vandeweghe S. In vitro accuracy of digital and conventional impressions for full-arch implant-supported prostheses. J Clin Med. 2022;11:594 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030594

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Gintaute A, Papatriantafyllou N, Aljehani M, Att W. Accuracy of computerized and conventional impression-making procedures for multiple straight and tilted dental implants. Int J Esthet Dent. 2018;13:550–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rech-Ortega C, Fernández-Estevan L, Solá-Ruíz MF, Agustín-Panadero R, Labaig-Rueda C. Comparative in vitro study of the accuracy of impression techniques for dental implants: Direct technique with an elastomeric impression material versus intraoral scanner. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2019;24:e89–e95. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.22822

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Revilla-León M, Rubenstein J, Methani MM, Piedra-Cascón W, Özcan M, Att W. Trueness and precision of complete-arch photogrammetry implant scanning assessed with a coordinate-measuring machine. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;129:160–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100:285–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60208-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Braian M, Wennerberg A. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners for scanning edentulous and dentate complete-arch mandibular casts: A comparative in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;122:129–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Jemt T, Hjalmarsson L. In vitro measurements of precision of fit of implant-supported frameworks. A comparison between “virtual” and “physical” assessments of fit using two different techniques of measurements. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14:e175–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00416.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 10360-2:2009 - Geometrical product specifications (GPS) – Acceptance and reverification tests for coordinated measuring machines (CMM) – Part 2: CMMs used for measuring linear dimensions. 2009. Available at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:10360:-2:ed-3:v1:en.html. (accessed October 2023).

  47. Galeva H, Uzunov T, Sofronov Y, Todorov G. Evaluation of the accuracy of the optical scanners used in the modern dental practice. J Phys Conf Ser. 2020;1492:012017 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1492/1/012017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Alshawaf B, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Accuracy of printed casts generated from digital implant impressions versus stone casts from conventional implant impressions: A comparative in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:835–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Basaki K, Alkumru H, De Souza G, Finer Y. Accuracy of digital vs conventional implant impression approach: a three-dimensional comparative in vitro analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32:792–9. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.5431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Etemad-Shahidi Y, Qallandar OB, Evenden J, Alifui-Segbaya F, Ahmed KE. Accuracy of 3-dimensionally printed full-arch dental models: a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2020;9:3357 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9103357

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Lin WS, Harris BT, Elathamna EN, Abdel-Azim T, Morton D. Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30:102–9. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3592

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Marques S, Ribeiro P, Falcão C, Lemos BF, Ríos-Carrasco B, Ríos-Santos JV, et al. Digital impressions in implant dentistry: a literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:1020 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031020

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Kim J-H, Kim KR, Kim S. Critical appraisal of implant impression accuracies: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114:185–192.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.02.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hussein MO. Photogrammetry technology in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;130:318–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.09.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Agustín-Panadero R, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Gomar-Vercher S, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Stereophotogrammetry for recording the position of multiple implants: technical description. Int J Prosthodont. 2015;28:631–6. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gómez-Polo M, Gómez-Polo C, Del Río J, Ortega R. Stereophotogrammetric impression making for polyoxymethylene, milled immediate partial fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119:506–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.04.029

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Molinero-Mourelle P, Lam W, Cascos-Sánchez R, Azevedo L, Gómez-Polo M. Photogrammetric and intraoral digital impression technique for the rehabilitation of multiple unfavorably positioned dental implants: a clinical report. J Oral Implantol. 2019;45:398–402. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Agustín-Panadero R, Bagán L, Giménez B, Peñarrocha M. Impression of multiple implants using photogrammetry: description of technique and case presentation. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2014;19:e366–371. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.19365

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Pradíes G, Ferreiroa A, Özcan M, Giménez B, Martínez-Rus F. Using stereophotogrammetric technology for obtaining intraoral digital impressions of implants. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145:338–44. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.2013.45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Sánchez-Monescillo A, Hernanz-Martín J, González-Serrano C, González-Serrano J, Duarte S Jr. All-on-four rehabilitation using photogrammetric impression technique. Quintessence Int. 2019;50:288–93. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a42098

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Suarez MJ, Paisal I, Rodriguez-Alonso V, Lopez-Suarez C. Combined stereophotogrammetry and laser-sintered, computer-aided milling framework for an implant-supported mandibular prosthesis: a case history report. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;31:60–62. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Fu XJ, Liu M, Liu BL, Tonetti MS, Shi JY, Lai HC. Accuracy of intraoral scan with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry compared with open tray impressions for complete-arch implant-supported prosthesis: A clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Pozzi A, Carosi P, Gallucci GO, Nagy K, Nardi A, Arcuri L. Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impression with intraoral optical scanning and stereophotogrammetry: An in vivo prospective comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023;34:1106–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Alpkılıç D, Değer S. In vitro comparison of the accuracy of conventional impression and four intraoral scanners in four different implant impression scenarios. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2022;37:39–48. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Abduo J, Palamara JEA. Accuracy of digital impressions versus conventional impressions for 2 implants: an in vitro study evaluating the effect of implant angulation. Int J Implant Dent. 2021;7:75 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00355-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Tsagkalidis G, Tortopidis D, Mpikos P, Kaisarlis G, Koidis P. Accuracy of 3 different impression techniques for internal connection angulated implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114:517–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.05.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Rasaie V, Abduo J, Hashemi S. Accuracy of intraoral scanners for recording the denture bearing areas: a systematic review. J Prosthodont. 2021;30:520–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Carneiro Pereira AL, Souza Curinga MR, Melo Segundo HV, da Fonte Porto Carreiro A. Factors that influence the accuracy of intraoral scanning of total edentulous arches rehabilitated with multiple implants: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;129:855–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.09.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Nitchakul Joensahakij & Wareeratn Chengprapakorn

  2. Faculty of Dentistry, Siam University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Pravej Serichetaphongse

  3. Bumrung rad international hospital, Bangkok, Thailand

    Pravej Serichetaphongse

Authors
  1. Nitchakul Joensahakij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pravej Serichetaphongse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wareeratn Chengprapakorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NJ: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing—Original draft. PS: Conceptualization, Supervision. WC: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing—Review & Editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wareeratn Chengprapakorn.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

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. Evid Based Dent (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01045-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01045-z

Search

Advanced search

Quick links