COMPARISON OF DIGITAL AND CONVENTIONAL IMPRESSION TECHNIQUE IN ASPECT OF PROCEDURE, TIME AND SATISFACTION
Keywords:
impression, digital, conventional, techniqueAbstract
Dental impression in dentistry is used for many purposes. One of these is to make a model that allows the study of fine details outside the oral cavity, which is sometimes impossible to achieve by direct prosthetic field inspection. This study aimed to review the literature on the comparation of conventional and digital impression techniques in aspect of procedure, time and satisfaction. The development strategy of CAD/CAM techniques included automating the production process and optimizing the quality of restorations by using new biocompatible materials, especially high performance ceramics, such as zirconia and lithium disilicate. Several reports have demonstrated the potential for accurate and precise restorations using CAD/CAM technology. There is some variability in conventional impressions and the resulting master casts, depending on the technique and material used by the operator. The accuracy of master casts has been the subject of numerous research projects, and is dependent on numerous items, including the water/ powder ratio, vacuum versus hand mixing, and the type of dental stone and its compatibility with impression materials. The advantages of the intra-oral scanning technique are: better patient acceptance, reduction of distortion in impression materials, visualization of three-dimensional preparation, reduction of clinical time. A lack of clinical studies addressing patient outcomes regarding digital prosthodontic treatments was observed among the included articles. However, current evidence suggests that patients are more likely to prefer the digital workflow than the conventional techniques
References
(2017). The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms: Ninth edition. J Prosthet Dent;117:e1-105.
Sailer, I,. Mühlemann, S., Fehmer, V., Hommerle, C.H., & Benic, G.I. (2018). Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part I: Time efficiency of complete-arch digital scans versus conventional impressions. J Prosthet Dent. pii: S0022-3913(18) 30363-9.
Rau, C.T., Olafsson, V.G., Delgado, A.J., Ritter, A.V., & Donovan, T.E. (2017). The quality of fixed prosthodontic impressions: An assessment of crown and bridge impressions received at commercial laboratories. J Am Dent Assoc;148:654-60.
Su, T.S., & Sun, J. (2016). Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses made with either a conventional or digital impression. J Prosthet Dent;116:362-7.
Abdel-Azim, T., Rogers, K., Elathamna, E., Zandinejad, A., Metz, M., Morton, D., et al. (2015). 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;114:554-9.
Herbst, D., Nel, J.C., Driessen, C.H., & Becker, P.J. (2000). Evaluation of impression accuracy for osseointegrated implant supported superstructures. J Prosthet Dent, 83(5):555–561.
Walker, M.P., Ries, D., & Borello, B. (2008). Implant cast accuracy as a function of impression techniques and impression material viscosity. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 23(4):669–674.
Ceyhan, J.A., Johnson, G.H., Lepe, X. (2003). The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions. J Prosthet Dent, 90(2):143 149.
Vigolo, P., Fonzi, F., Majzoub, Z., & Cordioli ,G. (2004). An evaluation of impression techniques for multiple internal connection implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent, 92(5):470–476.
Rudd, R.W., & Rudd, K.D. (2001) .A review of 243 errors possible during the fabrication of a removable partial denture: part II. J Prosthet Dent, 86(3):262–276.
Rudd, R.W., & Rudd ,K.D.(2001). A review of 243 errors possible during the fabrication of a removable partial denture: part III. J Prosthet Dent, 86(3):277–288.
Baba, N.Z., Goodacre, C.J., Jekki, R.,& Won, J. (2014). Gingival displacement for impression making in fixed prosthodontics: contemporary principles, materials, and techniques. Dent. Clin. North Am., 58(1):45- 68.
Bauman, R., Scarfe, W., Clark, S., Morelli, J., Scheetz, J., & Farman, A. (2011). Ex vivo detection of mesiobuccal canals in maxillary molars using CBCT at four different isotropic voxel dimensions. Int. Endod. J., 44(8):752-8.
Birnbaum, N.S., & Aaronson, H.B.(2008) Dental impressions using 3D digital scanners: virtual becomes reality. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent., 29(8):494-505.
Rekow, E.D. (2006). Dental CAD/CAM systems: A 20-year success story. J Am Dent Assoc;137 :5S-6S.
Amin, S., Weber, H.P., Finkelman, M., El Rafie, K., Kudara, Y., Papaspyridakos, P. (2017). Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: A comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res;28:1360-7.
Chochlidakis, K.M., Papaspyridakos, P., Geminiani ,A., Chen, C.J., Feng, I.J., & Ercoli, C. (2016). Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent;116:184-9.e12.
Gimenez-Gonzalez, B., Hassan, B., Özcan, M., & Prades, G. (2017). An in vitro study of factors influencing the performance of digital intraoral impressions operating on active wavefront sampling technology with multiple implants in the edentulous maxilla. J Prosthodont;26:650-5.
Yuzbasioglu, E., Kurt ,H., Turunc, R., & Bilir, H. (2014). Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: Evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health;14:10.
Ahlholm, P., Sipil, K., Vallittu, P., Jakonen, M., & Kotiranta, U. (2018). Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review. J Prosthodont;27:35-41.
Mühlemann, S., Benic, G.I., Fehmer, V., Hömmerle, C.H., & Sailer, I. (2018). Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic posterior fixed partial dentures. Part II: Time efficiency of CAD-CAM versus conventional laboratory procedures. J Prosthet Dent. pii: S0022-3913(18) 30362-7.
De La Cruz, J.E., Funkenbusch, P.D., Ercoli ,C., Moss, M.E., Graser, G.N., & Tallents, R.H. (2002). Verification jig for implant supported prosthesis: a comparison of standard impressions with verification jigs made of different materials. J Prosthet Dent, 88:329–336.
Luthardt, R., Weber, A., Rudolph, H,. Schone, C., Quaas, S., & Walter, M. (2002). Design and production of dental prosthetic restorations: basic research on dental CAD/CAM technology. Int J Comput Dent, 5:165–176.
Otto, T., & Schneider, D. (2008) .Long-term clinical results of chairside CEREC CAD/ CAM inlays and onlays: a case series. Int J Prosthodont, 21(1):53–59.
Alhouri, N., McCord, J.F., &Smith, P.W.(2004). The quality of dental casts used in crown and bridgework. Br Dent J, 197(5):261–264.
Wöstmann, B., Rehmann ,P., & Balkenhol, M. (2008). Influence of impression technique and material on the accuracy of multiple implant impressions. Int J Prosthodont, 21(4):299–301.
Birnbaum, N., Aaronson, H.B., Stevens, C., & Cohen, B. (2009). 3D digital scanners: a high-tech approach to more accurate dental impressions. Inside Dentistry, 5(4). Available from: http://www.insidedentistry.net.
Kim, S.Y., Kim, M.J., Han, J.S., Yeo, I.S., Lim, Y.J., & Kwon, H.B. (2013). Accuracy of dies captured by an intraoral digital impression system using parallel confocal imaging. Int J Prosthodont, 26(2):161–163.
Powers, J. (2006). Impression materials. In Craig’s Restorative Dental Materials. Edited by Powers J. St Louis: Mosby:269–312.
Seelbach, P., Brueckel, C., & Wöstmann, B. (2013). Accuracy of digital and conventional impression technique and workflow. Clin Oral Investig, 17(7):1759–1764.
Güth, J.F., Keul, C., Stimmelmayr, M., Beuer, F., & Edelhoff, D. (2013) Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig, 17:1201–1208.
Mehl, A., Ender, A., Mörmann, W., & Attin, T. (2009). Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent, 12:11–28.
van der Meer, W.J., Andriessen, F.S., Wismeijer, D., & Ren, Y. (2012). Application of intraoral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One, 7:e43312.
Lee, H., So, J.S., Hochstedler, J.L., & Ercoli, C. (2008). The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent, 100(4):285–291.
Christensen, G. J. (2009). Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J. Am. Dent. Assoc., 140(10):1301-4.
Lee, S.J., & Gallucci, G.O. (2013). Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: Efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res;24:111-5.
Zitzmann, N.U., Kovaltschuk, I., Lenherr ,P., Dedem, P., Joda, T. (2017). Dental students’ perceptions of digital and conventional impression techniques: A randomized controlled trial. J Dent Educ;81:1227-32.
Joda, T., & Brögger U. (2016) Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res;27:185-9.
Schepke, U., Meijer, H.J., Kerdijlk, W., & Cune, M.S. (2015). Digital versus analog complete arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: operating time and patient preference. J Prosthet Dent;114:403-6.
Gjelvold, B., Chrcanovic, B.R., Korduner, E.K., Collin-Bagewitz, I., & Kisch, J. (2016). Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. a randomized clinical trial. J Prosthodont;25:282-7.
Pommer, B., Zechner, W., Watzak, G., Ulm, C., & Tepper, G. (2011). Progress and trends in patients’mindset on dental implants. II: implant acceptance, patientperceived costs and patient satisfaction. Clin Oral Implants Res;22: 106-11.
Wismeijer, D., Mans, R., Van Genuchten, M., & Reijers, H.A. (2014). Patients’ preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res;25:1113-8.
Benic, G.I., Muhlemann, S., Fehmer, V., Hammerle, C.H., & Sailer, I. (2016). Randomized controlled within subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part I: digital versus conventional unilateral impressions. J Prosthet Dent;116:777-82.
