Objectives: This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the complete-arch scanning accuracy of different intraoral scanners (IOSs) to that of reference standard tessellation language (STL) files.
Data: Studies comparing the trueness and precision of IOS STL files with those of reference STL scans for different arch types (dentate, edentulous, completely edentulous with implants, and partially edentulous with implants) were included in this study.
Sources: An electronic search of five databases restricted to the English Language was conducted in October 2021.
Study selection: A total of 3,815 studies were identified, of which 114 were eligible for inclusion. After study selection and data extraction, pair-wise comparison and NMA were performed to define the accuracy of scanning for four arch subgroups using four outcomes (trueness and precision expressed as mean absolute deviation and root mean square values). Cochrane guidelines and the QUADAS-2 tool were used to assess the risk of bias. GRADE was used for certainty assessment.
Results: Fifty-three articles were included in this NMA. Altogether, 26 IOSs were compared directly and indirectly in 10 network systems. The accuracy of IOSs scans were not significantly different from the reference scans for dentate arches (three IOSs), edentulous arches (three IOSs), and completely edentulous arches with implants (one IOS). The accuracy of the IOSs was significantly different from the reference scans for partially edentulous arches with implants. Significant accuracy differences were found between the IOSs, regardless of clinical scenarios.
Conclusions: The accuracy of complete-arch scanning by IOSs differs based on clinical scenarios.
Clinical significance: Different IOSs should be used according to the complete arch type.
Keywords: Dentated; Edentulous; Implant; Precision; Ranking; Trueness.
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.