A Comparative Literature Review of Digital and Conventional Impressions in Prosthodontic Practice: From Patient Comfort to Clinical Outcomes Digital vs Conventional Impressions in Prosthodontics
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Dental impressions have traditionally been taken using conventional methods, which are time-consuming and often uncomfortable for patients. The rise of digital impression techniques has revolutionized the prosthetics industry, offering improved patient experience and workflow efficiency.
Objective: This review aimed to compare digital and conventional impression techniques in prosthodontic practice, focusing on patient comfort, accuracy, clinical outcomes, and time efficiency.
Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published between 2010 and 2024. Eligibility criteria included comparative studies involving digital and conventional impressions, assessing outcomes such as patient comfort, accuracy, and treatment time. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and analyzed qualitatively.
Results: Digital impressions were preferred by 85% of patients for comfort, with a significant reduction in gag reflex and procedure time by 30% compared to conventional techniques. Accuracy for full-arch restorations was inconsistent, with conventional methods showing slightly better precision in 45% of cases. Time efficiency favored digital impressions, reducing procedure duration by 40%.
Conclusion: Digital impressions offer improved patient comfort and time efficiency, but further research is needed to address gaps in accuracy for full-arch restorations and long-term clinical outcomes.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Bahammam HA. Conventional Vs Digital Impression: Comfort Level, Preferences, And Acceptance Of Treatment Time Among Orthodontic Patients. Open Dent J. 2022;16:1-9.
Bosoni C, Nieri M, Franceschi D, Souki BQ, Franchi L, Giuntini V. Comparison Between Digital And Conventional Impression Techniques In Children On Preference, Time, And Comfort: A Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2023;26(4):585-590.
Soliman I, Sharaf DA, Shawky A, Atteya AM. Diagnostic Evaluation And Guardian Assessment Of Using Digital Impression In Neonates Versus The Conventional Techniques. Alexandria Dent J. 2024;49(1):129-133.
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(3):386-391.
Manicone PF, De Angelis P, Rella E, Damis G, D'addona A. Patient Preference And Clinical Working Time Between Digital Scanning And Conventional Impression Making For Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128(4):589-596.
D'Ambrosio F, Giordano F, Sangiovanni G, Di Palo MP, Amato M. Conventional Versus Digital Dental Impression Techniques: What Is The Future? An Umbrella Review. Prosthesis. 2023;5(3):851-875.
Baghani MT, Neshati A, Sadafi M, Shidfar S. Evaluation Of The Accuracy Of Digital And Conventional Implant-Level Impression Techniques For Maxillofacial Prosthesis. J Family Med Prim Care. 2023;12(3):446-451.
Jajee M, Patil VS, Patil BC, Halkai SR, Kadammanavar J, Fatima M. Comparative Evaluation Of Accuracy, Time, And Patient Acceptance Between Intraoral Scanner And Conventional Alginate Impression Technique – An In Vivo Study. IP Indian J Orthod Dentofacial Res. 2023;9(3):183-191.
Alam M, Chugh A, Kumar A, Rathee M, Jain P. Comparative Evaluation Of Fracture Resistance Of Anterior Provisional Restorations Fabricated Using Conventional And Digital Techniques – An In Vitro Study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2022;22(4):361-367.
Chinese Stomatological Association. Guideline For Chairside Computer Aided Design And Computer Aided Manufacturing All Ceramic Rehabilitation. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2022;57(10):992-996.
Kirova G. Fabrication Of Non-Replaceable Superstructures On Conventional And Digital Impression Intraosseous Implants. Scripta Sci Med. 2022;54:59-65.
Tohme H, Lawand G, Akl M. A Novel Impression Technique For Transforming An Acrylic Hybrid Prosthesis Into A Metal Ceramic One Using Combined Analog And Digital Workflows. 2021.
Ishioka Y, Wada J, Kim EY, Sakamoto K, Arai Y, Murakami N, Wakabayashi N. Morphological Comparison Of Residual Ridge In Impression For Removable Partial Denture Between Digital And Conventional Techniques: A Preliminary In-Vivo Study. J Clin Med. 2023;12(22):7103.
Pereira ALC, Medeiros VR, Campos MDFTP, Medeiros AKB, Yilmaz B, Carreiro ADFP. Conventional And Digital Impressions For Complete-Arch Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses: Time, Implant Quantity Effect, And Patient Satisfaction. J Adv Prosthodont. 2022;14(4):212-222.