head JofIMAB
Journal of IMAB - Annual Proceeding (Scientific Papers)
Publisher: Peytchinski Publishing Ltd.
ISSN: 1312-773X (Online)
Issue: 2021, vol. 27, issue2
Subject Area: Dental Medicine
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2021272.3765
Published online: 04 June 2021

Original article

J of IMAB. 2021 Apr-Jun;27(2):3765-3771
Kiril GogushevORCID logo Corresponding Autoremail, Metodi AbadjievORCID logo,
Department of Clinics of Prosthetic Dental Medicine, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University - Varna, Bulgaria.

Introduction: Taking an impression of the oral cavity, which accurately recreates the prosthetic field, the surrounding hard dental and soft tissues, is one of the main and most important stages in the process of making any fixed prosthetic restoration. In modern prosthetic dentistry, impressions taken with the help of polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impression materials are common. Digital impressions eliminate some of the steps of conventional impression techniques and save clinical time.
Aim: The aim of this article is to compare the clinical time in digital and conventional impression techniques from a whole dental arch using a controlled clinical trial.
Material and methods: The present study includes 36 patients from Varna who need prosthetic treatment with fixed 3-unit bridge construction. For all participants, the conventional impression technique was performed first and one week later - the digital one. All clinical manipulations related to the implementation of the two impression techniques were performed according to the instructions of the manufacturing companies by the same specialist dentist.
Results: In all participants, the time required to perform the digital impression technique is significantly less than that of the conventional impression technique.
Conclusion: The digital impression technique has proven to be more efficient in terms of clinical time required for its implementation than the conventional impression technique.

Keywords: digital, conventional, impression, time, clinical study, efficiency,

pdf - Download FULL TEXT /PDF 1262 KB/
Please cite this article as: Gogushev K, Abadjiev M. Conventional vs Digital Impression Technique for Manufacturing of Three-unit Zirconia Bridges: Clinical Time Efficiency. J of IMAB. 2021 Apr-Jun;27(1):3765-3771. DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2021272.3765

Corresponding AutorCorrespondence to: Kiril Gogushev, Department of Clinics of prosthetic dentistry, Faculty of Dental medicine, Medical University - Varna; 84, Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd., 9000 Varna, Bulgaria; E-mail: kiril.gogushev@gmail.com

1. Christensen GJ. The challenge to conventional impressions. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Mar;139(3):347-9. [PubMed]
2. Davidowitz G, Kotick PG. The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 2011 Jul;55(3):559-70. [PubMed]
3. Abdel-Azim T, Rogers K, Elathamna E, Zandinejad A, Metz M, Morton D. Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Oct;114(4):554-9. [PubMed]
4. Almeida e Silva JS, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araujo E, Stimmelmayr M, Vieira LC, et al. Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig.  2014; 18(2):515-23. [PubMed]
5. Papadiochou S, Pissiotis AL. Marginal adaptation and CAD-CAM technology: a systematic review of restorative material and fabrication techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Apr;119(4):545-551. [PubMed]
6. Schonberger J, Erdelt KJ, Baumer D, Beuer F. Marginal and internal fit of posterior three-unit fixed zirconia dental prostheses fabricated with two different CAD/CAM systems and materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2017Nov;21(8):2629-35. [PubMed]
7. Shetty P, Rodrigues S. Accuracy of elastomeric impression materials on repeated pours. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2006; 6(2):68-71.
8. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016 Mar;115(3):313-20. [PubMed]
9. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J. 2009 Jan;28(1):44-56 [PubMed]
10. Christensen GJ. The state of fixed prosthodontic impressions: room for improvement. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005 Mar;136(3):343-346. [PubMed]
11. 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 Sep;20(7):1495-504. [PubMed]
12. Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Accuracy, reliability, and eficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: A systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod 2016 Aug;38(4):422-8. [PubMed]
13. Ahlholm P, Sipila K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: Areview. J Prosthodont. 2018 Jan;27(1):35-41. [PubMed]
14. Podhorsky A, Rehmann P, Wostmann B. Tooth preparation for full-coverage restorations-a literature review. Clin. Oral Investig. 2015 Jun;19(5):959–968. [PubMed]
15. Katreva Iv. [Advantages of α-adrenomimetic Decongestants over Conventional Chemical Agents for Gingival Retraction in Order to Avoid Adverse Systemic Side Effects.] [Dissertation] Medical University Varna, Bulgaria. 2015. 140 p [in Bulgarian]
16. Balkenhol M, Kanehira M, Finger WJ, Wöstmann B. Working time of elastomeric impression materials: relevance of rheological tests. Am J Dent. 2007 Dec;20(6):347-352. [PubMed]
17. Chee WWL, Donovan TE. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: a review of properties and techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 1992 Nov;68(5):728-732. [PubMed]
18. Nissan J, Laufer BZ, Brosh T, AssifD.Accuracy of three polyvinyl siloxane putty-wash impression techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2000 Feb;83(2):161-165. [PubMed]
19. Benic GI, Muhlemann S, Fehmer V, Hammerle CH, Sailer I. Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part I: digital versus conventional unilateral impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Nov;116(5):777-82. [PubMed]
20. Grunheid 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 Nov;146(5):673-82. [PubMed]
21. Sailer I, Muhlemann S, Fehmer V, Hammerle CHF, Benic GI. Randomized  controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part I: Time efficiency of complete-arch digital scans versus conventional impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Jan;121(1):69-75. [PubMed]
22. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, BilirH.Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014 Jan;30:14:10. [PubMed]
23. Haddadi Y, Bahrami G, Isidor F. Evaluation of Operating Time and Patient Perception Using Conventional Impression Taking and Intraoral Scanning for Crown Manufacture: A Split-mouth, Randomized Clinical Study. Int J Prosthodont. 2018 Jan-Feb;31(31):55–59. [PubMed]
24. Joda T, Brаgger U. Time-Efficiency Analysis Comparing Digital and Conventional Workflows for Implant Crowns: A Prospective Clinical Crossover Trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 Sep-Oct;30(5):1047-53.  [PubMed].

Received: 25 January 2021
Published online: 04 June 2021

back to Online Journal