IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i13p4725-d378732.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Digital versus Conventional Impression Taking Focusing on Interdental Areas: A Clinical Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz

    (Dental Clinic, Department of Prosthodontics, Justus Liebig University, 35392 Giessen, Germany)

  • Victoria Schubert

    (Dental Clinic, Department of Prosthodontics, Justus Liebig University, 35392 Giessen, Germany)

  • Alexander Schmidt

    (Dental Clinic, Department of Prosthodontics, Justus Liebig University, 35392 Giessen, Germany)

  • Bernd Wöstmann

    (Dental Clinic, Department of Prosthodontics, Justus Liebig University, 35392 Giessen, Germany)

  • Sabine Ruf

    (Dental Clinic, Department of Orthodontics, Justus Liebig University, 35392 Giessen, Germany)

  • Katharina Klaus

    (Dental Clinic, Department of Orthodontics, Justus Liebig University, 35392 Giessen, Germany)

Abstract

Due to the high prevalence of periodontitis, dentists have to face a larger group of patients with periodontally compromised dentitions (PCDs) characterized by pathologic tooth migration and malocclusion. Impression taking in these patients is challenging due to several undercuts and extensive interdental areas (IAs). The aim of this clinical trial was to analyze the ability of analog and digital impression techniques to display the IAs in PCDs. The upper and the lower jaws of 30 patients ( n = 60, age: 48–87 years) were investigated with one conventional impression (CVI) using polyvinyl siloxane and four digital impressions with intraoral scanners (IOSs), namely True Definition (TRU), Primescan (PRI), CS 3600 (CAR), and TRIOS 3 (TIO). The gypsum models of the CVIs were digitalized using a laboratory scanner. Subsequently, the percentage of the displayed IAs in relation to the absolute IAs was calculated for the five impression techniques in a three-dimensional measuring software. Significant differences were observed among the impression techniques (except between PRI and CAR, p -value < 0.05). TRU displayed the highest percentage of IAs, followed by PRI, CAR, TIO, and CVI. The results indicated that the IOSs are superior to CVI regarding the ability to display the IAs in PCDs.

Suggested Citation

  • Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz & Victoria Schubert & Alexander Schmidt & Bernd Wöstmann & Sabine Ruf & Katharina Klaus, 2020. "Digital versus Conventional Impression Taking Focusing on Interdental Areas: A Clinical Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-12, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:13:p:4725-:d:378732
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/13/4725/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/13/4725/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paulo Ribeiro & Mariano Herrero-Climent & Carmen Díaz-Castro & José Vicente Ríos-Santos & Roberto Padrós & Javier Gil Mur & Carlos Falcão, 2018. "Accuracy of Implant Casts Generated with Conventional and Digital Impressions—An In Vitro Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-15, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maciej Jedliński & Marta Mazur & Katarzyna Grocholewicz & Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska, 2021. "3D Scanners in Orthodontics—Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives—A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. María Isabel Albanchez-González & Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann & Jesús Peláez-Rico & Carlos López-Suárez & Verónica Rodríguez-Alonso & María Jesús Suárez-García, 2022. "Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-18, February.
    2. Simone Marques & Paulo Ribeiro & Carlos Falcão & Bernardo Ferreira Lemos & Blanca Ríos-Carrasco & José Vicente Ríos-Santos & Mariano Herrero-Climent, 2021. "Digital Impressions in Implant Dentistry: A Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-20, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:13:p:4725-:d:378732. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.