DIGITAL VERSUS CONVENTIONAL IMPRESSIONS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY IN SINGLE-CROWN FABRICATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22551/MSJ.2025.04.14Abstract
Aim of the study. This study aimed to assess the dimensional accuracy and time efficiency of digital and conventional impression techniques used in recording complete dental impressions for single-crown fabrication. Materials and methods: A standardized typodont model designed for single-crown preparation was used to obtain 45 impressions: 15 with condensation silicone (Zeta Plus with Oranwash), 15 with addition silicone (Elite HD+), and 15 digital impressions using the Primescan AC intraoral scanner. Linear measurements of crown height, cervical widths, and interproximal distances were performed using Dental CAD software. Recording time was documented for each technique. Results: Digital impressions exhibited slightly lower mean values at the crown cervical finish line compared with conventional silicones, though all values remained within clinically acceptable limits. Significant differences (p < 0.001) were observed for cervical width measurements, while other parameters showed no statistical differences. The digital workflow demonstrated the shortest mean recording time (286 ± 7.39 s), followed by addition silicone (650.8 ± 8.93 s) and condensation silicone (713.67 ± 12.22 s). Conclusions: All three impression techniques produced clinically acceptable results. Digital impressions proved to be the most time-efficient and reproducible but tended to slightly underestimate certain dimensions. Although digital systems offer greater efficiency and patient comfort, addition silicone remains the preferred material for many practitioners in cases requiring full-arch or subgingival accuracy.
References
1. Alyami MH. The Applications of 3D-Printing Technology in Prosthodontics: A Review of the Current Literature. Cureus 2024; 16(9): e68501.
2. Punj A, Bompolaki D, Garaicoa J. Dental Impression Materials and Techniques. Dent Clin North Am 2017; 61(4): 779-796.
3. Bosînceanu DG, Bosînceanu DN, Luchian I, Baciu R, Tatarciuc M, Mârțu I. Complete dentures-clinical behavior and patients’ complaints. Romanian Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2017; 9(2): 5-8.
4. Papadiochos I, Papadiochou S, Emmanouil I. The Historical Evolution of Dental Impression Materials. J Hist Dent 2017; 65(2): 79-89.
5. Mandikos MN. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: an update on clinical use. Aust Dent J 1998; 43(6): 428-434.
6. Chee WW, Donovan TE. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: a review of properties and tech-niques. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68(5): 728-732.
7. Mangano A, Beretta M, Luongo G, Mangano C, Mangano F. Conventional Vs Digital Impressions: Acceptability, Treatment Comfort and Stress Among Young Orthodontic Patients. Open Dent J 2018; 12: 118-124.
8. Birnbaum NS, Aaronson HB. Dental impressions using 3D digital scanners: virtual becomes reality. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2008; 29(8): 494-505.
9. Nayar S, Mahadevan R. A Paradigm shift in the concept for making dental impressions. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2015; 7(Suppl 1): S213-S215.
10. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health 2017; 17(1): 149.
11. Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Rydén J, Thor A. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent 2018; 69: 110-118.
12. Lupu IC, Vasluianu RI, Baciu R-E, Agop-Forna D, Tibeică SC, Forna NC. The integration of artificial intelligence in dental practice. Romanian Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2023; 15(2): 272-279.
13. Burzynski JA, Firestone AR, Beck FM, Fields HW Jr, Deguchi T. Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018; 153(4): 534-541.
14. Joda T, Brägger U. Time-Efficiency Analysis Comparing Digital and Conventional Workflows for Implant Crowns: A Prospective Clinical Crossover Trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 30(5): 1047-53.
15. Logozzo S, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G, Kilpelä A, Mäkynen A. Recent advances in dental optics – Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Opt Lasers Eng 2014; 54: 203-221.
16. Watanabe H, Fellows C, An H. Digital Technologies for Restorative Dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2022; 66(4): 567-590.
17. Baciu ER, Budală DG, Vasluianu RI, et al. A Comparative Analysis of Dental Measurements in Physical and Digital Orthodontic Case Study Models. Medicina (Kaunas) 2022; 58(9): 1230.
18. McCracken MS, Louis DR, Litaker MS, Minyé HM, Mungia R, Gordan VV, Marshall DG, Gilbert GH; National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Collaborative Group. Treatment recommen-dations for single-unit crowns: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent Assoc 2016; 147(11): 882-890.
19. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90(1): 31-41.
20. Pihlaja J, Näpänkangas R, Raustia A. Early complications and short-term failures of zirconia single crowns and partial fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112(4): 778-783.
21. Dahl BE, Dahl JE, Rønold HJ. Digital evaluation of marginal and internal fit of single-crown fixed dental prostheses. Eur J Oral Sci 2018; 126(6): 512-517.
22. Porto AM, Nascimento MV, Garcia BA, et al. Marginal adaptation of tooth-supported fixed restora-tions fabricated using digital scanning versus conventional impression techniques: An overview of systematic reviews. J Prosthet Dent 2025; 134(3): 629.e1-629.e13.
23. Goodacre CJ, Campagni WV, Aquilino SA. Tooth preparations for complete crowns: an art form based on scientific principles. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 85(4): 363-376.
24. Carter SM, Wilson PR. The effects of die-spacing on post-cementation crown elevation and retention. Aust Dent J 1997; 42(3): 192-198.
25. Olivera AB, Saito T. The effect of die spacer on retention and fitting of complete cast crowns. J Prostho dont 2006; 15(4): 243-249.
26. McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971; 131(3): 107-111.
27. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 2015; 46(1): 9-17.
28. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20(7): 1495-1504.
29. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17(7): 1759-1764.
30. An S, Kim S, Choi H, Lee JH, Moon HS. Evaluating the marginal fit of zirconia copings with digital impressions with an intraoral digital scanner. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112(5): 1171-1175.
31. Pedroche LO, Bernardes SR, Leão MP, et al. Marginal and internal fit of zirconia copings obtained using different digital scanning methods. Braz Oral Res 2016; 30(1): e113.
32. Takeuchi Y, Koizumi H, Furuchi M, Sato Y, Ohkubo C, Matsumura H. Use of digital impression systems with intraoral scanners for fabricating restorations and fixed dental prostheses. J Oral Sci 2018; 60(1): 1-7.
33. Kumar HC, Kumar TP, Hemchand S, Suneelkumar C, Subha A. Accuracy of marginal adaptation of posterior fixed dental prosthesis made from digital impression technique: A systematic review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2020; 20(2): 123-130.
34. Gan H, Sun S, Tian R, et al. In Vitro analysis of the influence of different tooth positions and retention depths of the pulp cavity on the accuracy of digital impression of the endo crown Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao 2023; 43(11): 1941-1946.
35. Shenoy A, Maiti S, Nallaswamy D, Keskar V. An In Vitro comparison of the marginal fit of provi-sional crowns using the virtual tooth preparation workflow against the traditional technique. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2023; 23(4): 391-397.
36. Sidhom M, Zaghloul H, Mosleh IE, Eldwakhly E. Effect of Different CAD/CAM Milling and 3D Printing Digital Fabrication Techniques on the Accuracy of PMMA Working Models and Vertical Marginal Fit of PMMA Provisional Dental Prosthesis: An In Vitro Study. Polymers (Basel) 2022; 14(7): 1285.
37. Shembesh M, Ali A, Finkelman M, Weber HP, Zandparsa R. An In Vitro Comparison of the Marginal Adaptation Accuracy of CAD/CAM Restorations Using Different Impression Systems. J Prosthodont 2017; 26(7): 581-586.
38. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression tech-niques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014; 14: 10.
39. Flügge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29(Suppl 16): 374-392.
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 The Medical-Surgical Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
COPYRIGHT
Once an article is accepted for publication, MSJ requests a transfer of copyrights for published articles.
COPYRIGHT TRANSFER FORM FOR
REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ A SOCIETĂȚII DE MEDICI ȘI NATURALIȘTI DIN IAȘI /
THE MEDICAL-SURGICAL JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF PHYSICIANS AND NATURALISTS FROM IASI
We, the undersigned authors of the manuscript entitled
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
warrant that this manuscript, which is submitted for publication in the REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ, has not been published and it is not under consideration for publication in another journal.
- we give the consent for publication in the REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ, in printed and electronic format and we transfer unconditioned and complete the copyright of this manuscript to the REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ, in the event of its acceptance.
- the manuscript does not break the intellectual property rights of any other person.
- we have read the submitted version of the manuscript and we are fully responsible for the content.
Names and signatures of authors / copyright owners (the following sequence is the authorship of the article):
- ______________________________/_________________________
- ______________________________/_________________________
- ______________________________/_________________________
N.B. All the authors must sign this form
