Digital versus Conventional Impression Taking Focusing on Interdental Areas: A Clinical Trial

Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz, Victoria Schubert, Alexander Schmidt, Bernd Wöstmann, Sabine Ruf and Katharina Klaus
Additional contact information
Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz: Dental Clinic, Department of Prosthodontics, Justus Liebig University, 35392 Giessen, Germany
Victoria Schubert: Dental Clinic, Department of Prosthodontics, Justus Liebig University, 35392 Giessen, Germany
Alexander Schmidt: Dental Clinic, Department of Prosthodontics, Justus Liebig University, 35392 Giessen, Germany
Bernd Wöstmann: Dental Clinic, Department of Prosthodontics, Justus Liebig University, 35392 Giessen, Germany
Sabine Ruf: Dental Clinic, Department of Orthodontics, Justus Liebig University, 35392 Giessen, Germany
Katharina Klaus: Dental Clinic, Department of Orthodontics, Justus Liebig University, 35392 Giessen, Germany

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 13, 1-12

Abstract: Due to the high prevalence of periodontitis, dentists have to face a larger group of patients with periodontally compromised dentitions (PCDs) characterized by pathologic tooth migration and malocclusion. Impression taking in these patients is challenging due to several undercuts and extensive interdental areas (IAs). The aim of this clinical trial was to analyze the ability of analog and digital impression techniques to display the IAs in PCDs. The upper and the lower jaws of 30 patients ( n = 60, age: 48–87 years) were investigated with one conventional impression (CVI) using polyvinyl siloxane and four digital impressions with intraoral scanners (IOSs), namely True Definition (TRU), Primescan (PRI), CS 3600 (CAR), and TRIOS 3 (TIO). The gypsum models of the CVIs were digitalized using a laboratory scanner. Subsequently, the percentage of the displayed IAs in relation to the absolute IAs was calculated for the five impression techniques in a three-dimensional measuring software. Significant differences were observed among the impression techniques (except between PRI and CAR, p -value < 0.05). TRU displayed the highest percentage of IAs, followed by PRI, CAR, TIO, and CVI. The results indicated that the IOSs are superior to CVI regarding the ability to display the IAs in PCDs.

Keywords: intraoral scanners; periodontally compromised dentition; full-arch impression; aligner treatment; orthodontics; digital prosthodontics; clinical trial (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/13/4725/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/13/4725/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:13:p:4725-:d:378732

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().