The aim of this study was to evaluate intraoral scanners accuracy in full-arches, comparing them with conventional impressions. A scientific research performed in MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and SciELO databases was conducted to analyze articles published between 2015 and 2020. Clinical and in vitro studies that evaluated accuracy (precision and trueness) from intraoral scanners and conventional impressions in full-arches were included. Two tests were applied to evaluate the methodological bias from the studies. Out of the 191 articles found, seven of them were selected for a qualitativeanalysis.In clinical studies,intraoral scanners CEREC Omnicam and 3Shape TRIOS Colorhad the highest precision compared to conventional irreversible hydrocolloid impressions. In in vitro studies, conventional polyvinyl siloxane impressions showed the highest accuracy, followed by intraoral scanners Cadent iTero and CEREC Omnicam, while irreversible hydrocolloid impressions showed the lowest accuracy. Digital intraoral impression systems do not show superior accuracycompared to highly accurate conventional impression techniques. However, they provide excellent clinical results and both methods are clinically accepted.
KEY WORDS: intraoral scanners, conventional impressions, trueness, precision, accuracy, full-arch.
How to cite this article
SALGUEIRO, D.; QUILODRÁN, I. & ROSAS, C. Accuracy of intraoral scanners and conventional impressions in full-arches: A systematic review. Int. J. Odontostomat., 15(4):835-842, 2021.