## 2 Materials and Methods
Then, the risk and bias analysis was also included using the tool (ROB2) developed for controlled and randomized clinical studies (Cochrane) and a specific tool for non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) [18; 19]. The quantitative data collected from the articles were tabulated, allowing risk ratio (RR) analysis with 95% confidence interval (CI); the contribution weight of each study was performed for meta-analysis calculation purposes (dichotomous data). Continuous data were analyzed using the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. For all analyses performed, significant values were considered \(p<0.05\). The Review Manager 7.2 software (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2024; London, UK) was used for the meta-analysis and preparation of graphs. The primary outcome was to quantify the survival and complication rates of implant-supported prostheses manufactured using the intraoral scanning method and compare them with the conventional technique (impression with dental implant transfer). The secondary outcomes were an analysis of marginal bone loss, time taken to obtain the scan/impression, and need for retakes. The success criteria for implant survival were the absence of a radiolucent area around the implant, implant stability, no mucosal suppuration, and no pain. Prosthetic survival was defined as the absence of fractures in the occlusal material/infrastructure and prosthetic components. Failure of the prosthesis was considered a need for replacement. Complications were classified as technical and/or biological [3; 4; 6; 8; 9]. \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt}} \hline \hline
**Author and** **Yaaf and** **Publication** & **Design.** & **Size** & **Country** & **Randomization** & **Average Age (Min-Max)** & **Groups** & **Region** & **Scanner** & **Type of Prosthesis (ON-off length)** & **Infrastructure** & **Tademark** & **Length \(\times\)** **Homplants** & **Follow-Up (MO)** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2019[6] & RCT & II & Italy & Yes & 64.4 (48-72) & CC and DC & Mx & Carnetown CS & Full-arch (800) & Metallic & CSR & 13.15-3.8 & 24 \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2021[21] & RCT & II & Italy & Yes & 46.85 (48-72) & CC and DC & Mx and Md & MyMyMy 30 TSt, & & & & & & \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2020[21] & RCT & II & Italy & Yes & 46.45 (48-72) & CC and Md & Mx and Md & MyMyMy 30 TSt, & & & & & \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2020[21] & Prospective & III-2 & USA & No & NR & CC and Md & Mx & True Detinction & & & & & \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2024[8] & RCT & II & Egypt & Yes & 56 (48-500) & Mx & los+500 Medit & Full-arch (8) & CoCr & Nobel & NR & 6, 12, 24 M \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2024[22] & RCT & II & Egypt & Yes & 67.1 & CC and Md & Md & Ontario (Impethyl) & & & & & \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2015[5] & Prospective & III-3 & Italy & Yes & 56.3 & DC & Mx and Md & Lux COS (SM) & Full-arch (4) & Metallic (NR) & Wintack & 13.15-3.8 & 12 \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2016[4] & Prospective & III-1 & Italy & Yes & 57.2 (48-72) & CC and Md & Mx and Md & Trions (\(\Omega\) shape) & Full-arch (4) & CoCr & NR & 15.35-3.75 & 12 \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2023[21] & Retrospective & III-3 & USA & No & 70.6 (4) & DC & Mx and Md & NEUS ISOS & Full-arch (4) & Titanium & **=** & NR & 12 M \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2021[9] & Prospective & III-3 & Russian & No & 68.8 (48-76) & DC & Mx & Carnetown CS & Overculture (400) & Zirconia & ETS/sde & NR & 12 \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2023[21] & Retrospective & III-3 & USA & No & NR & DC & Mx and Md & Trions 3.5 (4,5 or 6) & Full-arch (4,5 or 6) & PEEK & Sraemann & 8.10-12, & 14.33-3.375 & NR \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2023[21] & Retrospective & III-3 & USA & No & NR & DC & Md & Trions 3 & Full-arch (4,5 or 6) & Zirconia & Sraemann & 41.14-8 & 41.48 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}   
* NR not reported, CC: control group; DC: digital group; Mx: maxilla; Md: mandible; Mt: months; RCT: randomized controlled trials.