Digital Versus Conventional Impressions

Autor/innen

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/d3000.2025.929

Schlagworte:

Digital Dentistry, Digital impression, Conventional impression, in vivo, three-dimensional

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this research was to compare and contrast, in vivo, the three-dimensional (3D) dental impressions produced by digital and traditional methods. Materials and Methods: This research was comprised of ten individuals who had full natural teeth. The subjects' molars were digitally imprinted using an intra-oral scanner (Helios 600 3D). The double-mix impression method (SILAXIL BOX & PROTESIL LIGHT) was also used to create a silicone imprint. The Lava COS system exported the stereolithography (STL) data immediately, and a three-dimensional (3D) intra-oral scanner recorded the STL data of a plaster model created from a silicone imprint. The 3D assessment program captured the STL files. It overlaid them using the best-fit-algorithm approach for each impression technique (least-squares method, PolyWorks, InnovMetric program). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the two methods with respect to 3D data. Results: Differences between digital impressions were less noticeable when comparing them to silicone impressions, according to a visual analysis of stacked datasets. Using a digital imprint approach yielded more confirmation (0.014± 0.02 mm) compared to a traditional method (0.023 ± 0.01 mm). Conclusion: According to this in vivo investigation, digital impression technology outperforms traditional impression techniques.

Literaturhinweise

Baba K. Paradigm shifts in prosthodontics. Journal of Prosthodontic Research. 2014;58: 1–2. pmid:24412149

Scotti R, Cardelli P, Baldissara P, Monaco C. Clinical fitting of CAD/CAM zirconia single crowns generated from digital intraoral impressions based on active wavefront sampling. J Dent. 2011. pmid:22027653

Ahrberg D, Lauer HC, Ahrberg M, Weigl P. Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20: 291–300. pmid:26070435

Shah S, Sundaram G, Bartlett D, Sherriff M. A 3D laser scanner using superimposition software is used to assess the accuracy of impression techniques. J Dent. 2004;32: 653–658. pmid:15476960

Arslan Y, Karakoca Nemli S, Bankoğlu Güngör M, Tamam E, Yılmaz H. Evaluation of biogeneric design techniques with CEREC CAD/CAM system. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015;7: 431–436. pmid:26816572

Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17: 1759–1764. pmid:23086333

Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19: 2027–2034. pmid:25693497

Logozzo S, Franceschini G, Kilpelä A. A comparative analysis of intraoral 3D digital scanners for restorative dentistry. Internet J Med Technol. 2011;5: 1–19

Abdel-Azim T, Rogers K, Elathamna E, Zandinejad A, Metz M, Morton D. Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114: 554–559. pmid:26100929

Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients' preferences when comparing analog implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2014;25: 1113–1118. pmid:23941118

Patzelt SBM, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18: 1687–1694. pmid:24240949

Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patient's perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. BioMed Central; 2014;14: 10. pmid:24479892

van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y. Application of Intra-Oral Dental Scanners in the Digital Workflow of Implantology. Glogauer M, editor. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: e43312. pmid:22937030

Karl M, Graef F, Schubinski P, Taylor T. Effect of intraoral scanning on the passivity of fit of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. Quintessence Int. 2012;43: 555–562. pmid:22670250

Schaefer O, Decker M, Wittstock F, Kuepper H, Guentsch A. Impact of digital impression techniques on the adaption of ceramic partial crowns in vitro. J Dent. 2014;42: 677–683. pmid:24508541

Yang X, Lv P, Liu Y, Si W, Feng H. Accuracy of Digital Impressions and Fitness of Single Crowns Based on Digital Impressions. Materials. 2015;8: 3945–3957.

Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2015;26: 715–719. pmid:24720423

Cho S-H, Schaefer O, Thompson GA, Guentsch A. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113: 310–315. pmid:25682531

Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115: 313–320. pmid:26548890

Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: A new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109: 121–128. pmid:23395338

Kwon SW, Liapi KA, Haas CT, Bosche F. Algorithms for fitting cylindrical objects to sparse range point clouds for rapid workspace modeling. 20th International Symposium …. 2003.

Cho Y-K, Kwon S-W. Rapid Geometric Modeling for Construction Automation. KSCE J Civ Engineering. KSCE J of Civ Engineering. 2003;7: 225–231.

Valero E, Adan A, Cerrada C. Automatic Construction of 3D Basic-Semantic Models of Inhabited Interiors Using Laser Scanners and RFID Sensors. Sensors. Molecular Diversity Preservation International; 2012;12: 5705–5724. pmid:22778609

Ting-shu S, Jian S. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review. J Prosthodont. 2015;24: 313–321. pmid:25220390

Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent. 2010;38: 553–559. pmid:20381576

Kim S-Y, Kim M-J, Han J-S, Yeo I-S, Lim Y-J, Kwon H-B. Accuracy of dies captured by an intraoral digital impression system using parallel confocal imaging. Int J Prosthodont. 2013;26: 161–163. pmid:23476911

Su T-S, Sun J. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses made with either a conventional or digital impression. J Prosthet Dent. 2016. pmid:27061628

Berrendero S, Salido MP, Valverde A, Ferreira A, Pradíes G. Influence of conventional and digital intraoral impressions on the fit of CAD/CAM-fabricated all-ceramic crowns. Clin Oral Investig. 2016. pmid:26800669

Kollmuss M, Kist S, Goeke JE, Hickel R, Huth KC. Comparison of chairside and laboratory CAD/CAM to conventional produced all-ceramic crowns regarding morphology, occlusion, and aesthetics. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20: 791–797. pmid:26245275

Brawek PK, Wolfart S, Endres L, Kirsten A, Reich S. The clinical accuracy of single crowns exclusively fabricated by digital workflow—the comparison of two systems. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17: 2119–2125. pmid:23371756

Güth J-F, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17: 1201–1208. pmid:22847854

Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2015. pmid:26547869

Lee W-S, Park J-K, Kim J-H, Kim H-Y, Kim W-C, Yu C-H. A new approach to accuracy verification of 3D surface models: An analysis of point cloud coordinates. Journal of Prosthodontic Research. 2016;60: 98–105. pmid:26603682

Sousa MVS, Vasconcelos EC, Janson G, Garib D, Pinzan A. Accuracy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;142: 269–273. pmid:22858338

Hayashi K, Sachdeva AUC, Saitoh S, Lee S-P, Kubota T, Mizoguchi I. Assessment of the accuracy and reliability of new 3-dimensional scanning devices. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144: 619–625. pmid:24075671

Barreto MS, Faber J, Vogel CJ, Araujo TM. Reliability of digital orthodontic setups. Angle Orthod. 2016;86: 255–259. pmid:26042573

Asquith J. Dental arch relationships on three-dimensional digital study models and conventional plaster study models for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal. 2012;49: 530–534. pmid:21214319

Downloads

Veröffentlicht

2025-06-27

Ausgabe

Bd. 13 Nr. 1 (2025)

Rubrik

Mechanisms of Oral Disease

Lizenz

Copyright (c) 2025 Mohammad Munthir Abdulrazzaq, Mithaq R. Mohammed

Creative-Commons-Lizenz
Dieses Werk steht unter der Lizenz Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.