Moscow, Moscow, Russian Federation
student
Moscow, Moscow, Russian Federation
Moscow, Moscow, Russian Federation
Moscow, Moscow, Russian Federation
Moscow, Moscow, Russian Federation
UDC 616.31
Subject. Currently, in prosthetic dentistry, significant attention is being paid to digital protocols. The conventional method of fabricating dental prostheses involves using silicone impression materials to obtain a working cast – a replica that closely mimics the spatial position of implants within the jawbone. The accuracy of this cast is a critical factor influencing the outcomes of prosthetic treatment. When performing implant-supported prosthetics, clinicians employ well-documented protocols using either open-tray or closed-tray impression techniques. Numerous scientific studies have compared the accuracy of conventional impressions to that of digital impressions. However, a comparative analysis of conventional impressions made with open-tray, closed-tray techniques and digital impressions has not been found in the literature. Therefore, conducting this comparative study represents a relevant and timely research objective. Objectives. A comparative analysis of implant-level impression techniques for single implant-supported crowns with the aim of minimizing prosthetic misfit and providing clinical recommendations. Materials and methods. A reference model fabricated via additive manufacturing from an STL file acquired through an intraoral scan of the patient served as the control. Conventional impressions were made using a polyvinyl siloxane material, while digital impressions were acquired with a 3Shape TRIOS intraoral scanner. Results. The smallest deviation from the reference model in the centro-occlusal (CO) and axio-occlusal (AO) zones was observed for the digital impression technique (17.5 ± 0.7 µm and 50.8 ± 2.4 µm, respectively), followed by the open-tray technique (28.5 ± 1.9 µm and 58.0 ± 1.3 µm, respectively). The closed-tray technique demonstrated the lowest accuracy (101.8 ± 6.3 µm and 99.0 ± 1.7 µm, respectively). Regarding the medio-axial (MA) zone, the most accurate results were obtained with the closed-tray and open-tray techniques (8.5 ± 0.7 µm and 31.8 ± 0.9 µm, respectively), while the digital impression method yielded the least accurate result (63.3 ± 3.0 µm). Conclusions. In conclusion, we would like to say that for taking precise impression from a single implant, it’s recommended to use a digital protocol and digital impression. For taking a conventional silicon impression, the open-tray technique showed the best results, being more accurate in compare the closed-tray technique.
digital impressions, conventional impressions, dental implants, accuracy, intraoral scanning
1. Vol'fart Sh., Harder S., Rayh S. i dr. Protezirovanie s oporoy na implantaty: planirovanie ot rezul'tata: planirovanie, process lecheniya, vyzhivaemost' implantatov i protezov, estetika, funkciya, zubotehnicheskie tehnologii. Moskva: Azbuka; 2016. 701 s. [Wolfart S., Harder S., Reich S. and others. Implant-based prosthetics: outcome-based planning: planning, treatment process, survival of implants and prostheses, aesthetics, function, dental technology. Moscow: ABC; 2016. 701 p. (In Russ.)].
2. Ryahovskiy A.N., Muradov M.A. Tochnyy ottisk. Moskva; 2006. 207 s. [Ryakhovsky A.N., Muradov M.A. Accurate impression. Moscow; 2006. 207 p. (In Russ.)].
3. Gupta R., Brizuela M. Dental Impression Materials. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34662010/
4. Prohorova E.V., Dunaev S.A., Afanas'eva A.V., Ulyasheva Zh.A., Borisov V.V., Pustohina I.G. Vybor slepochnyh materialov otnositel'no klinicheskoy situacii i srokov hraneniya gotovyh ottiskov (obzornaya stat'ya). Vestnik novyh medicinskih tehnologiy. 2023;30(2):43-47. [Prokhorova E.V., Dunaev S.A., Afanasyeva A.V., Ulyasheva Zh.A., Borisov V.V., Pustokhina I.G. The choice of impression materials in relation to the clinical situation and the shelf life of the finished impressions (review article). Journal of New Medical Technologies. 2023;30(2):43-47. (In Russ.)]. https://doi.org/10.24412/1609-2163-2023-2-43-47
5. Yoo S.Y., Kim S.K., Heo S.J., Koak J.Y., Kim J.G. Dimensional Accuracy of Dental Models for Three-Unit Prostheses Fabricated by Various 3D Printing Technologies. Materials (Basel). 2021;14(6):1550. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14061550
6. Jeong Y.G., Lee W.S., Lee K.B. Accuracy evaluation of dental models manufactured by CAD/CAM milling method and 3D printing method. The journal of advanced prosthodontics. 2018;10(3):245-251. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.3.245
7. Zhang Z.C., Li P.L., Chu F.T., Shen G. Influence of the three-dimensional printing technique and printing layer thickness on model accuracy. Journal of orofacial orthopedics. 2019;80(4):194-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-019-00180-y
8. Banerdzhi A., Tavaradzha S. redaktory. Reshenie klinicheskih problem v stomatologii po Odellu. Moskva: GEOTAR-Media; 2024. 520 s. [Banerjee A., Tavaraja S. editors. Odell's Clinical Problem Solving in Dentistry. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media; 2024. 520 p. (In Russ.)].
9. Marques S., Ribeiro P., Falcão C., Lemos B.F., Ríos-Carrasco B., Ríos-Santos J.V. et al. Digital Impressions in Implant Dentistry: A Literature Review. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2021;18(3):1020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031020
10. Imburgia M., Logozzo S., Hauschild U., Veronesi G., Mangano C., Mangano F.G. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4
11. Liu X., Feng K., Dong L., Liu L., Ni L., Zheng D. Accuracy and Efficiency of Digitally Fabricated All-Ceramic Crowns from Conventional Impressions and Intraoral Scans: A Single-Blind Clinical Randomized Controlled Trial. The International journal of prosthodontics. 2024;37(1):8-15. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8143
12. Karl M., Taylor T.D. Bone Adaptation Induced by Non-Passively Fitting Implant Superstructures: A Randomized Clinical Trial. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2016;31(2):369-375. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4331
13. Kim J.H., Kim K.R., Kim S. Critical appraisal of implant impression accuracies: A systematic review. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2015;114(2):185-192.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.02.005
14. Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S., Ozan O., Ozcelik T.B., Yagiz A. Digital evaluation of the accuracy of impression techniques and materials in angulated implants. Journal of dentistry. 2014;42(12):1551-1559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.10.008
15. Chochlidakis K., Papaspyridakos P., Tsigarida A., Romeo D., Chen Y.W., Natto Z. et al. Digital Versus Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae. Journal of prosthodontics. 2020;29(4):281-286. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13162
16. Djurovic Koprivica D., Puskar T., Budak I., Sokac M., Jeremic Knezevic M., Maletin A. et al. Influence of Implant Impression Methods, Polymer Materials, and Implant Angulation on the Accuracy of Dental Models. Polymers (Basel). 2022;14(14):2821. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14142821
17. Hoods-Moonsammy V.J., Owen P., Howes D.G. A comparison of the accuracy of polyether, polyvinyl siloxane, and plaster impressions for long-span implant-supported prostheses. The International journal of prosthodontics. 2014;27(5):433-438. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4035
18. Rues S., Depré D., Stober T., Rammelsberg P., Zenthöfer A. Accuracy of polyether and vinylpolysiloxane impressions when using different types of 3D-printed impression trays - an in vitro study. Clinical oral investigations. 2024;28(10):560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05962-2
19. Kim K.M., Lee J.S., Kim K.N., Shin S.W. Dimensional changes of dental impression materials by thermal changes. Journal of biomedical materials research. 2001;58(3):217-220. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4636(2001)58:3<217::aid-jbm1010>3.0.co;2-v
20. Abduo J., Ho G., Centorame A., Chohan S., Park C., Abdouni R. et al. Marginal Accuracy of Monolithic and Veneered Zirconia Crowns Fabricated by Conventional and Digital Workflows. Journal of prosthodontics. 2023;32(8):706-713. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13618
21. de Oliveira N.R.C., Pigozzo M.N., Sesma N., Laganá D.C. Clinical efficiency and patient preference of digital and conventional workflow for single implant crowns using immediate and regular digital impression: A meta-analysis. Clinical oral implants research. 2020;31(8):669-686. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13604
22. Afrashtehfar K.I., Alnakeb N.A., Assery M.K.M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners versus traditional impressions: a rapid umbrella review. The journal of evidence-based dental practice. 2022;22(3):101719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101719
