View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
Title Digital Dental Impressions Effective In Producing Clinically Acceptable Crowns
Clinical Question In a healthy, adult patient, is a digitally scanned dental impression for a single crown more accurate than an impression using a conventional impression?
Clinical Bottom Line A digital scanned dental impression may be an effective alternative to conventional impression making in regard to marginal fit, retention, contact points, occlusion, adjustment time, and patient discomfort. (See Comments on the CAT below)
Best Evidence (you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link)
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type
(level of evidence)
#1) 18578100Henkel/2007117 patients Uncontrolled clinical trial and opinion survey (Low)
Key results85% of crowns produced from digitally scanned dental impressions were clinically acceptable, versus 74% from conventional impressions. The average time required to obtain impressions for the digital method was 2.4 minutes compared to 3.2 minutes for the traditional method. Dentists chose the crown produced from digital imaging over the crown from traditional impressions 68% of the time.
#2) 18520000Christensen/2008Expert opinion (Low)
Key resultsAuthor’s conclusion: “Digital impressions appear to be practical, and the concept is being perfected, but the need for further research is clear”.
Evidence Search Dental Impression Technique;[Mesh] AND;Computer-Aided Design;[Mesh]
Comments on
The Evidence
The Henkel study is an unsystematic study with subjective outcome evaluation. There is no proper statistical analysis of data and a high risk of bias. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to compare these two techniques.
Applicability Digital dental impression techniques were reported to produce accurate impressions, but the dentist would have to weigh the cost of purchasing the new technology and the learning curve of the new system.
Specialty/Discipline (General Dentistry) (Prosthodontics)
Keywords Dental Impression, Digital Impression, Computer-Aided Design, Scanned Impression
ID# 511
Date of submission: 01/13/2010spacer
E-mail kartaltepe@uthscsa.edu
Author Christen Kartaltepe
Co-author(s) David A. Vela
Co-author(s) e-mail
Faculty mentor/Co-author
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?)
post a rationale
None available
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
post a comment
by B. John Nikmard (San Antonio, TX) on 04/09/2012
A PubMed search on the accuracy of digital impressions was conducted April 2012 and found two more recent publications that add further documentation to this published CAT: PubMed: 22027653 and 20381576.

Return to Found CATs list