Evaluation of the Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Methods of Obtaining Dental Impressions

Abstract

The aim of this study was to carry out a literature review on the accuracy of conventional and digital dental impression methods, as well as present the various three-dimensional intraoral scanning systems. A bibliographic search was carried out in PUBMED's main health database, in which works published between 2008 and 2018 were collected. Laboratory studies, case reports and systematic reviews were included, addressing topics that deal with conventional digital materials, impression and precision. Articles that did not evaluate impression materials, their behavior and techniques to obtain a good impression of oral structures were excluded. Through a review in the literature, obtained the following findings: the most critical stage in macking a dental prothesis is to take the dental impression. The conventional technique of impression consists of obtaining a negative copy of the intra-oral situation that will be poured into gypsum, obtaining a positive copy, on which the work will be carried out. Digital scanning systems were not superior to conventional moldings when comparing fidelity, accuracy and detail reproduction; in contrast, they were superior to conventional impression when considering clinical chair time, patient and operator preference, and patient comfort.

Comparison of the Accuracy and Time Efficiency of Two Different digital Impressions of Single Tooth Implant Treatments

“…It was reported that experienced clinicians achieved greater homogeneity and thinner coatings. Therefore, it is recommended to use only light dusting on the surfaces to be scanned (23). In the present study, the powdering did not affect the results of the accuracy.…”

Step-by-Step Esthetic Rehabilitation with Chairside System

“…Lima et al [ 15 ] reported statistically significant differences by comparing the marginal adaptation of prosthetic restorations milled through both direct and indirect CAD/CAM systems in favor of the direct one. The study of Carvalho et al [ 16 ] confirmed the superiority of digital techniques in comparison with conventional methods. However, the systematic review of Goujat et al [ 17 ] reported that the marginal adaptation obtained was satisfactory without statistically significant differences between the two techniques.…”

“…But secondary areas, such as grooves and pits, were better reproduced in gypsum models. To sum up, chairside technology allows especially saving time [ 16 ] as digital scanning is easy and rapid. Besides, there is no need to disinfect and clean dental impressions either waiting cast pouring.…”

Multivariate Assessment of Marginal Fit Concerning Two Types of Dental Inlays Obtained Through Two CAD-CAM Technology Scanning Methods - an in vitro Follow-up Study

“…Obtaining a model of good quality that true to its original is extremely important for the success of the treatment; different types of materials and impression techniques have been used over the years to achieve this desired accuracy [1]. Since the introduction of dental CAD/CAM systems, the adaptation of restorations may be improved by combining intraoral scanning and digital milling [2,3].…”