Precise reproduction of oral structures is a critical requirement in prosthodontic rehabilitation. Conventional impression procedures commonly involve elastomeric materials that may be associated with dimensional changes, patient discomfort, gag reflex stimulation, and technique sensitivity. Recent advances in digital dentistry have led to the development of intraoral scanners capable of obtaining highly accurate virtual models of dental arches. Digital impression techniques have increasingly become integrated into prosthetic workflows because of their efficiency and convenience. Comparative evaluation of these methods is important for determining their advantages and limitations in clinical practice and for improving treatment quality.
The aim of this study was to compare conventional and digital impression techniques in prosthodontics and evaluate their influence on clinical accuracy, patient comfort, treatment efficiency, and prosthetic outcomes.
The study included 80 patients requiring prosthodontic treatment involving fixed dental restorations. Participants were divided into two groups according to the impression method used. The first group underwent conventional impression procedures using elastomeric materials, while the second group received digital impressions using intraoral scanning technology. Parameters evaluated included impression accuracy, procedure duration, patient comfort, need for repeated impressions, and clinician satisfaction. Data were analyzed statistically to compare differences between groups.
The findings demonstrated that digital impression techniques significantly reduced clinical procedure time and improved patient comfort compared with conventional methods. Patients undergoing digital scanning reported lower discomfort levels and reduced gag reflex occurrence during procedures. Digital impressions showed high precision and required fewer repeated procedures. Conventional impressions provided acceptable clinical outcomes but were associated with increased technique sensitivity and material-related limitations. Digital workflows also facilitated improved communication with dental laboratories and contributed to more efficient fabrication of prosthetic restorations.
Digital impression techniques represent an effective alternative to conventional methods in prosthodontics and provide advantages related to patient comfort, procedural efficiency, and workflow optimization. Although conventional techniques remain clinically reliable, digital technologies offer improved convenience and comparable accuracy for prosthetic rehabilitation. Integration of digital systems into contemporary dental practice may contribute to enhanced treatment quality and patient satisfaction.
1. Anusavice K.J., Shen C., Rawls H.R. Phillips' Science of Dental Materials. Elsevier; 2013.
2. Mangano F.G., Hauschild U., Veronesi G., et al. Trueness and precision of digital impressions. PLoS One. 2016;11(6).
3. Ender A., Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions. Int J Comput Dent. 2011;14(1):11–21.
4. Joda T., Brägger U. Digital vs conventional implant prosthetic workflows. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(12)–e44.
5. Güth J.F., Keul C., Stimmelmayr M., et al. Accuracy of digital models obtained by intraoral scanning. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(4):1209–1215.
6. Miyazaki T., Hotta Y., Kunii J., et al. Current status of CAD/CAM systems. J Prosthodont Res. 2009;53(2):45–56.
7. Logozzo S., Zanetti E.M., Franceschini G., et al. Recent advances in dental optics and digital systems. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:92.
8. Patel N. Integrating digital technologies into prosthodontics. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2010;10(1):30–37.
9. med1.uz – Educational resources and scientific materials on prosthodontics and digital dentistry.
10. Ting-Shu S., Jian S. Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont. 2015;24(4):313–321.