View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
Title Digital impressions vs conventional impressions; accurate for single unit crowns and short Fixed Partial Dentures, but not accurate for full arch restorations.
Clinical Question Are digital impressions as accurate as conventional impressions for single unit restorations, short FPDs and full arch restorations?
Clinical Bottom Line For patients needing single full coverage restoration and short span FDPs, digital impressions provide the same accuracy as conventional impressions. The practitioner found it faster and less difficult to acquire the image and patients reported a more pleasant experience compared to conventional impression technique. Extra oral digital image of the cast was recommended with patients who needed a full arch FDPs for their treatment.
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) 27483210Ahlholm/201619 total articles 10 vitro, 1 vivo 140 Restorations Fabricated and analyzed.Systematic review of randomized trials
Key resultsDigital impressions produced clinically acceptable single unit and short FDP restorations with marginal gaps of 111.4 and 80.2 microns, below the clinical acceptable of 120 microns marginal gap. Conversely, in order to achieve similar results, conventional impression technique workflow would have to be very precise throughout all steps in order to create a well-fitting restoration. The conventional process is also very time intensive. Digital impressions however are standardized, creating a shorter process and results in less time intensity. A positive, overall bi-product of digital impression technique is a reduction in the number of errors introduced in the fabrication of the restoration. This study demonstrates that full arch restoration will still require a conventional impression that can be scanned in the lab in order to use a digital workflow.
Evidence Search ((Digital impressions) AND Dental) AND Digital vs conventional AND (full text[sb] AND "last 5 years"[PDat])
Comments on
The Evidence
Validity: All studies reviewed and included in the systematic review (SR) are vitro studies except one. Also, there was inconsistent use of conventional impression technique and digital scanners in included studies. This will result in a larger range of marginal gap in both conventional and CAD/CAM fabricated restorations. Perspective: Based on the SR, there is strong evidence in support of intra-oral scanning and CAD/CAM technology to fabricate single unit and short span FDPs. It is important to note that the use of this technology creates increased efficiency and a better patient experience. The practitioner should also be aware of the limitations of this technology in regard to full arch restorations. Additional long term vivo studies are recommended to determine comparative restoration longevity.
Applicability In clinical practice, patients often present with a need for full coverage restorations or missing teeth that need short span FDPs in order to return to functionality. The evidence shows that the use of an intra-oral scanner and CAD/CAM technology is more efficient for the practitioner, improves patient experience, and creates a restoration with acceptable marginal fit compared to a conventional impression technique.
Specialty/Discipline (General Dentistry) (Oral Surgery) (Periodontics) (Prosthodontics) (Restorative Dentistry)
Keywords Digital dental impression
ID# 3293
Date of submission: 11/14/2017spacer
E-mail azarnoush@uthscsa.edu
Author Kaveh Azarnoush
Co-author(s) Chris Yang
Co-author(s) e-mail yangc3@uthscsa.edu
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
None available

Return to Found CATs list