Conventional vs Digital Impressions

Authors

Vinitha Gopal-Murthy, University of the Pacific
Mirna Merhi-Boghossian, University of the Pacific
Geet Shukla, University of the Pacific

Lead Author Affiliation

International Dental Studies Program

Lead Author Program & Year

IDS Year 1

Second Author Program & Year

IDS Year 1

Third Author Program & Year

IDS Year 1

Presentation Category

Literature Review

Introduction/Context/Diagnosis

Summary: A dental impression is a negative replica of the hard and soft tissues of the oral cavity. Conventional impressions help make dental casts which are used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Digital impression involves a 3D intraoral scanning, which is processed by the impression involves a 3D intraoral scanning, which is processed by the computer to generate a virtual replica of the tissues in the mouth. In siloxanes, poly sulfides, addition and condensation silicones are used. Digital impressions can be a closed system like CEREC, that relies on one manufacturer and technology for CAD/CAM procedures or open systems like Trios and iTero that are compatible with many other technologies.

Results/Outcome

Significance: On comparing the 2 impression modalities, studies have shown that digital impressions are preferred over conventional impressions because of patient comfort, efficiency, repeatability, practitioner preference, treatment planning, and ease of performing the procedure. However, conventional impressions still have a very important place in dentistry as they are more accurate, especially in long span multiple fixed restorations cases. Conventional impressions are also cheaper initially but some studies have shown that in the long run, if multiple digital impressions are taken by a dental office in a day, then digital impressions are more feasible monetarily. With the current technologies of the intraoral scanner, the only contraindications of digital impression are long span fixed partial dentures or impressions for complete removable prosthesis. It is only a matter of time before

Significance/Conclusions

According to an article published in the Journal of Prosthodontics: • A systematic review was done to evaluate the evidence of possible benefits and accuracy of digital impression techniques vs. conventional impression techniques- Digital impression accuracy was at the same level as conventional impression methods in fabrication of single unit crowns and short bridges. • For fabrication of implant-supported crowns and FDPs, digital impression accuracy is clinically acceptable. In full-arch impressions, conventional impression methods resulted in better accuracy compared to digital impressions. • Digital impression techniques are faster and can shorten the operation time, however, conventional impression technique is still recommended for full-arch impressions. • With the advent of better technology, cameras and scanners, it is only a matter of time before digital impressions overtake conventional impression techniques.

Format

Event