Revisión sistemática de impresiones digitales Intraorales

Abstract

Statement of the problem: Intraoral digital impressions may vary in precision and trueness (accuracy) between scanners, this issue needs to be studied. Objective: Analyze, and compare the characteristics of accuracy (precision and trueness) of intraoral digital impressions. Methods: A Medline/Pubmed and Cochcrane search was performed to identify relevant articles about precision and trueness in digital impressions. The search was limited to articles that describe the superimposition of STL files gained from a pattern for fixed partial prosthesis with an intraoral scanner. The articles were determined from the PICOS system recommended by the PRISMA guidelines. Results: Three studies accomplished the eligibility criteria. The scanners included, and their results respectively were: Bluecam: 12.7±2.6 um / 17.5±1.8 um, Omnicam: 12.5±3.7 um / 13.8±1.4 um. Carestream 3500: 0.014 mm / 13±1, Zfx Intrascan: 0.033 mm / 30±10-45, Bluecam: 0.029 mm / 22.5±25-30, Omnicam: 0.031 mm / 30±32.5-27.5, True definition: 0.011 mm / 10±2.5-7.5. E4D dentist: 97.6±109.2 um / 114.2±80.7 um, Fastscan: 26.0±24.4 um / 45.2±29.8 um, iTero: 25.8±22.5 um / 52.1±38.8 um, Trios: 13.0±12.1 / 49.7±36.6 um, Zfx Intrascan: 132.3±124.4 um / 89.4±64.2 um. The studies evaluated the precision and trueness from the superimposition of STL images they manage the results in microns, only one study managed the results in millimeters. Conclusions and implications: The superimposition demonstrated different values according to each scanner, scanners with better performance were: in precision Bluecam, Carestream 3500, Trios. While in trueness were: Omnicam, True Definition, Fastscan.