Comparison of the accuracy of intraoral digital impression system and conventional impression techniques for multiple implants in the full-arch edentulous mandible

Farhan, Firas A.; Sahib, Ali-Jameel-Abdul; Fatalla, Abdalbseet-Ahmad

doi:10.4317/jced.57926

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The goal of every practitioner is to realize precise impressions, which are a prerequisite for fabricating dental restorations with a proper marginal fit [2]. The accuracy of the casts depends on numerous factors: materials and techniques used; type, size, and rigidity of the impression trays used; application of tray adhesive; shrinkage of the impression materials; type of dental stone; and its compatibility with the different types of impression materials [3][4][5]. Nowadays, the most used impression materials are polyvinyl siloxanes, polyethers, and irreversible hydrocolloids [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intraoral scanning was developed in the 1980s and represented an acceptable alternative to conventional impression techniques, providing information for various situations such as diagnosis, orthodontic measurements, restorative dentistry, and implant-supported prosthodontics [4][5][6][7][8]. Improved patient acceptance, comfort, reduced vomiting reflex, reduced distortions, three-dimensional immediate pre-visualization and evaluation of the preparations, cost and time efficiency, more accessible communication with the dental laboratory, and data storage are the benefits of digital scanning [9][10][11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of Intraoral Full-Arch Scan versus Conventional Preliminary Impression

Jánosi,

Cerghizan,

Mártha

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An accurate impression is vital during prosthodontic rehabilitation. Digital scanning has become an alternative to conventional impressions. This study compares conventional preliminary impression techniques with digital scanning, evaluating the efficiency, treatment comfort, and trueness. Impressions of 28 patients were taken using conventional and digital techniques. The efficiency of both impression techniques was evaluated by measuring the mean working time. A visual analog scale questionnaire (1–10) was used to appreciate the participants’ perceptions of discomfort. Morphometric measurements, which were carried out to determine the differences between the casts, were made on the buccolingual cross sections of teeth 11 and 31 and the distolingual and mesiobuccal cusp tips of each first molar. The total treatment time was 75.5 min for conventional and 12 min for digital impressions. The patients scored a mean discomfort assessment of 6.66 for conventional and 9.03 for digital scanning. No significant differences existed between the examined areas (p < 0.05, Wilcoxon and Mann–Whitney tests) of the digital casts obtained by both techniques. The intraoral scan can be considered as an alternative to conventional preliminary impressions for performing study model analysis during orthodontic treatment planning. The digital impression is more comfortable and accepted by the patients than the conventional impression and has a shorter working time.

show abstract