ABSTRACT
Objectives:
This study aims to evaluate and compare the accuracy, procedural efficiency, and patient satisfaction between traditional and digital impression techniques utilized in full mouth rehabilitation.
Methods:
A randomized clinical trial involving 40 patients requiring full mouth rehabilitation was conducted. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: traditional impression group (n = 20) using polyvinyl siloxane, and digital impression group (n = 20) utilizing intraoral scanners. Inclusion criteria were adults requiring full mouth restoration without systemic diseases affecting oral conditions. Exclusion criteria included severe periodontal disease, pregnancy, and unwillingness to participate. Parameters assessed included marginal fit (μm), accuracy (surface deviation analysis), procedural efficiency (procedure duration), and patient comfort using a visual analogue scale (VAS).
Results:
Digital impressions showed significantly superior marginal fit accuracy (digital: 24.5 ± 3.8 μm; traditional: 43.2 ± 5.7 μm; P < .001), precision (surface deviation: digital: 19.8 ± 4.2 μm; traditional: 37.4 ± 6.1 μm; P < .001), and procedural efficiency (digital: 12.6 ± 2.4 mins; traditional: 25.8 ± 3.9 mins; P < .001). Patient satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the digital impression group (VAS: digital: 8.6 ± 1.2; traditional: 6.1 ± 1.4; P < .001).
Conclusions:
Digital impressions provided superior accuracy, efficiency, and patient satisfaction compared to traditional methods, making digital techniques preferable for full mouth rehabilitation. Clinicians can confidently adopt digital impression technology, enhancing procedural accuracy, efficiency, and patient comfort, significantly impacting treatment quality in comprehensive dental restorations.
KEYWORDS: Clinical accuracy, digital dentistry, full mouth rehabilitation, impression techniques, traditional impressions
INTRODUCTION
Impression techniques play a pivotal role in full mouth rehabilitation by capturing precise oral structures critical for restoration accuracy and fit.[1,2] Traditional impression materials, notably polyvinyl siloxane and polyether, have long been utilized due to their accuracy and dimensional stability.[3] Despite their clinical efficacy, traditional techniques possess inherent disadvantages, including patient discomfort, extended procedural duration, and risk of dimensional inaccuracies due to material deformation.[4]
Digital impression techniques utilizing intraoral scanners offer promising alternatives, characterized by enhanced patient comfort, reduced chairside time, and potentially improved accuracy in capturing detailed oral structures.[5] Nevertheless, concerns regarding their clinical accuracy and reliability in comprehensive restorative scenarios persist, highlighting a significant research gap.
Considering the evolving landscape of digital dentistry and contrasting claims regarding the accuracy and efficiency of traditional versus digital impression techniques, a clear comparative clinical evaluation is warranted. Thus, this randomized clinical trial was designed to systematically compare traditional and digital impression methods, focusing explicitly on marginal fit accuracy, precision of the impressions, procedural efficiency, and patient comfort and satisfaction. The outcomes of this research will help clinicians make informed decisions regarding the optimal impression technique, thereby potentially improving clinical outcomes and patient experience in full mouth rehabilitation procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Forty adult patients requiring full mouth rehabilitation were randomized into two equal groups of 20 participants each. Inclusion criteria encompassed healthy adults without systemic conditions affecting dental tissues. Exclusion criteria included severe periodontal diseases, pregnancy, and patient noncompliance.
Group one underwent traditional impressions using polyvinyl siloxane with standard double-mix, double-phase techniques. Group two utilized digital impressions captured using high-resolution intraoral scanners. Both techniques strictly adhered to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Primary assessment criteria included marginal fit evaluated under a stereomicroscope (measured in micrometers), accuracy assessed via surface deviation analysis software, procedural efficiency recorded in min, and patient comfort quantified using a visual analog scale (VAS). Data were statistically analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics ver. 26.0, employing independent t-tests to assess significant differences between groups, with significance set at P < .05.
RESULTS
Digital impressions demonstrated significantly better marginal fit accuracy compared to traditional methods (digital: 24.5 ± 3.8 μm vs. traditional: 43.2 ± 5.7 μm; P < .001). Similarly, surface deviation analysis revealed significantly greater precision in digital impressions (digital: 19.8 ± 4.2 μm vs. traditional: 37.4 ± 6.1 μm; P < .001) [Table 1].
Table 1.
Marginal Fit and Precision
| Parameter | Digital Impressions (mm) | Traditional Impressions (mm) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marginal Fit | 24.5±3.8 | 43.2±5.7 | <0.001 |
| Precision | 19.8±4.2 | 37.4±6.1 | <0.001 |
Procedural efficiency favored digital impressions significantly, with shorter procedural durations (digital: 12.6 ± 2.4 min vs. traditional: 25.8 ± 3.9 min; P < .001). Patient satisfaction was also significantly greater in the digital impression group as measured by VAS scores (digital: 8.6 ± 1.2 vs. traditional: 6.1 ± 1.4; P < .001) [Table 2].
Table 2.
Procedural Efficiency and Patient Satisfaction
| Parameter | Digital Impressions | Traditional Impressions | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural time (min) | 12.6±2.4 | 25.8±3.9 | <0.001 |
| Patient satisfaction | 8.6±1.2 | 6.1±1.4 | <0.001 |
DISCUSSION
This randomized clinical trial provided clear evidence that digital impression techniques deliver significantly superior marginal fit accuracy, precision, procedural efficiency, and patient satisfaction compared to traditional impression methods. The observed superiority in marginal fit and precision is consistent with prior studies demonstrating that intraoral scanners produce impressions with reduced dimensional errors, ultimately ensuring a better adaptation of restorations.[6,7] Mangano et al. highlighted similar findings, reporting digital impressions as capable of capturing finer details and intricate anatomical structures more effectively than traditional polyvinyl siloxane materials.[7]
Additionally, the digital impression method demonstrated remarkable procedural efficiency, completing procedures in almost half the time required by conventional methods. This enhanced efficiency aligns with prior literature emphasizing substantial chairside time reduction when utilizing digital technology, a critical factor contributing to increased clinical productivity and cost-effectiveness.[8,9] Studies by Yuzbasioglu et al.[10] further support this outcome, indicating that digital scanning significantly streamlines clinical workflow and reduces both patient and operator fatigue, ultimately enhancing overall procedural efficacy.
Patient satisfaction emerged distinctly higher in the digital impression group. The enhanced comfort associated with digital impressions, attributed primarily to the avoidance of uncomfortable impression trays and materials, is well documented.[11] Grünheid et al.[12] reinforced this finding, showing significant patient preference for digital techniques, specifically due to reduced discomfort and anxiety during procedures. This aspect is particularly critical in comprehensive procedures like full mouth rehabilitation, where patient cooperation and comfort significantly impact clinical outcomes and patient adherence to treatment protocols.
Despite robust findings, this study acknowledges certain limitations. First, the relatively small sample size and short duration might restrict the broader generalization of results. Additionally, this study evaluated short-term outcomes, and further research investigating the long-term clinical performance of restorations fabricated using digital versus traditional impressions is recommended. Factors such as long-term restoration integrity, marginal adaptation stability over time, and cost-effectiveness across broader patient populations warrant further investigation.
Future studies should also evaluate newer intraoral scanning devices and evolving impression materials to continuously update clinical recommendations. Comparative studies involving various digital systems could offer additional insights into their relative advantages, helping clinicians make more tailored decisions regarding technology integration. Ultimately, future research directions must incorporate longitudinal evaluations to conclusively validate the sustained clinical effectiveness and economic implications of adopting digital impression technologies.
CONCLUSION
The present study demonstrated that digital impressions significantly outperform traditional methods concerning marginal fit accuracy, precision, procedural efficiency, and patient satisfaction. Digital impression techniques using intraoral scanners consistently provided superior clinical outcomes and greater comfort, supporting their recommended adoption for full mouth rehabilitation procedures. This evidence underscores the substantial benefits of integrating digital technology into routine clinical practice, facilitating enhanced patient experience and treatment quality. Given these advantages, clinicians are encouraged to utilize digital impressions, thereby optimizing outcomes in restorative dentistry. Future studies should further validate long-term clinical effectiveness, confirming digital technology as a reliable standard for comprehensive rehabilitative treatments.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
Nil.
REFERENCES
- 1.Sakornwimon N, Leevailoj C. Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients'preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118:386–91. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.019. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Punj A, Bompolaki D, Garaicoa J. Dental impression materials and techniques. Dent Clin North Am. 2017;61:779–96. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2017.06.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Rubel BS. Impression materials: A comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 2007;51:629–42. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2007.03.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Vitti RP, da Silva MA, Consani RL, Sinhoreti MA. Dimensional accuracy of stone casts made from silicone-based impression materials and three impression techniques. Braz Dent J. 2013;24:498–502. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440201302334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review. J Prosthodont. 2018;27:35–41. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116:184–90.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: A review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17:149. doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral digital impression technique: A review. J Prosthodont. 2015;24:313–21. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Albdour EA, Shaheen E, Vranckx M, Mangano FG, Politis C, Jacobs R. A novel in vivo method to evaluate trueness of digital impressions. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18:117. doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0580-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: Evaluation of patients'perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:10. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients'preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (intraoral scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:1113–8. doi: 10.1111/clr.12234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Grünheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: An assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146:673–82. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]