COMPARISON OF THE ACCURACY BETWEEN DIGITAL AND TRADITIONAL IMPRESSIONS FOR FABRICATION OF IMPLANT-SUPPORTED CROWN

Mikhail Murashov; Yana Vaganova; Arina Zhurina; Maria Platonova; Svetlana Stepanova

doi:10.18481/2077-7566-2025-21-3-189-194

UDC

616.31

VAK Russia

3.1.7

COMPARISON OF THE ACCURACY BETWEEN DIGITAL AND TRADITIONAL IMPRESSIONS FOR FABRICATION OF IMPLANT-SUPPORTED CROWN

Published in Actual problems in dentistry · Pages 189–194 · Rubric: ORTHOPEDIC AND DIGITAL DENTISTRY

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18481/2077-7566-2025-21-3-189-194

Received: 09.10.2025 Accepted: 29.10.2025 Published: 29.10.2025 Language of publication: RUS

Authors

Mikhail Murashov

Yana Vaganova

Arina Zhurina

Maria Platonova

Svetlana Stepanova

Mikhail Murashov

Academic degree: candidate of medical sciences

Russian University of Medicine Associate Professor of the Department · Department of Propaedeutics and Prosthetic Technologies in Dentistry · Russian Federation · Moscow

Yana Vaganova

Russian University of Medicine Russian Federation · Moscow

Arina Zhurina

Academic degree: candidate of medical sciences

Russian University of Medicine Associate Professor of the Department · Department of Propaedeutics and Prosthetic Technologies in Dentistry · Russian Federation · Moscow

Maria Platonova

Russian University of Medicine Head of the Academic Department · Department of Propaedeutics and Prosthetic Technologies in Dentistry · Russian Federation · Moscow

Svetlana Stepanova

Russian University of Medicine Assistant of the department · Department of Propaedeutics and Prosthetic Technologies in Dentistry · Russian Federation · Moscow

ABSTRACT

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.

KEYWORDS

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

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

JATS XML

Editor in Chief

Sergey Zholudev

zholudev_se@mail.ru

Deputy editor

Yuliya Mandra

jmandra@mail.ru

502

downloads

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Creative Commons

GOST

Murashov M. A., Vaganova Y. A., Zhurina A. A., Platonova M. S., Stepanova S. Y. COMPARISON OF THE ACCURACY BETWEEN DIGITAL AND TRADITIONAL IMPRESSIONS FOR FABRICATION OF IMPLANT-SUPPORTED CROWN // Actual problems in dentistry. 2025. no. 3. pp. 189-194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18481/2077-7566-2025-21-3-189-194. (Date of access 06.09.2026).

MLA

Mikhail Murashov, Vaganova Y. A., Zhurina A. A., Platonova M. S., Stepanova S. Y.. "COMPARISON OF THE ACCURACY BETWEEN DIGITAL AND TRADITIONAL IMPRESSIONS FOR FABRICATION OF IMPLANT-SUPPORTED CROWN." Actual problems in dentistry 21.3 (2025): 189-194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18481/2077-7566-2025-21-3-189-194.

APA

Murashov M. A., Vaganova Y. A., Zhurina A. A., Platonova M. S., Stepanova S. Y. (2025). COMPARISON OF THE ACCURACY BETWEEN DIGITAL AND TRADITIONAL IMPRESSIONS FOR FABRICATION OF IMPLANT-SUPPORTED CROWN. Actual problems in dentistry, 21(3), 189-194. https://doi.org/10.18481/2077-7566-2025-21-3-189-194

Chicago

Mikhail Murashov, Vaganova Y. A., Zhurina A. A., Platonova M. S., Stepanova S. Y.. "COMPARISON OF THE ACCURACY BETWEEN DIGITAL AND TRADITIONAL IMPRESSIONS FOR FABRICATION OF IMPLANT-SUPPORTED CROWN." Actual problems in dentistry 21, no. 3 (2025): 189-194. https://doi.org/10.18481/2077-7566-2025-21-3-189-194.

WIKI

{{cite journal | author = Murashov M. A., Vaganova Y. A., Zhurina A. A., Platonova M. S., Stepanova S. Y. | title = COMPARISON OF THE ACCURACY BETWEEN DIGITAL AND TRADITIONAL IMPRESSIONS FOR FABRICATION OF IMPLANT-SUPPORTED CROWN | journal = Actual problems in dentistry | year = 2025 | volume = 21 | issue = 3 | pages = 189-194 | doi = 10.18481/2077-7566-2025-21-3-189-194 }}

Copy

Export: BibTeX EndNote RefMan RusMARC

COMPARISON OF THE ACCURACY BETWEEN DIGITAL AND TRADITIONAL IMPRESSIONS FOR FABRICATION OF IMPLANT-SUPPORTED CROWN

Confirmation