Meta Analysis on Conventional Versus Digital Implant Impressions in Full Mouth Rehabilitation Cases

Statement of problem: Evidence comparing conventional versus digital implant impressions in full mouth rehabilitation cases. Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the duration of making impressions in conventional versus digital implant cases in full mouth rehabilitation. Material and method: This systematic review and meta-analysis have been conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Review and Meta Analyses) protocol and PICO (Population Intervention Comparison Outcome) study design. Heterogeneity was evaluated, and meta-analyses were performed in the selected articles. Results: the database search resulted in 614 articles. After removing duplicate articles, the titles and abstract were screened in detail and 8 articles were selected for quantitative and qualitative analysis according to the eligibility criteria. Overall, conventional impressions showed greater time than digital impression. A mean difference of 4.43 minutes was found, making digital impressions beneficial at p less than0.001, which was highly significant. The study reported heterogeneity of 96%, suggesting wide variance amongst the studies. In order to accommodate for heterogeneity, a random effect model was employed. Conclusion: conventional impressions showed greater time than digital impression in implant cases in full mouth rehabilitation.