Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 5, 2025
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Quantitative analysis of the selective pressure impression technique using CAD-CAM technology: A pilot clinical study
Brett E Stein1, Hyung-In Yoon2, Heather Mattie3
1Graduate student in Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Mass.
Statement Of Problem:
Quantitative 3D clinical analysis of the selective pressure impression technique directly measuring tissue displacement during impression making for complete maxillary dentures is lacking.
Purpose:
The purpose of this clinical study was to digitally compare impressions made of the edentulous maxillary ridge by using the selective pressure impression technique with different amounts of relief incorporated into custom tray designs.
Material And Methods:
Nine participants receiving maxillary complete dentures were enrolled in the study. An initial custom tray was fabricated in urethane dimethacrylate by using the alternative border molding technique without relief and scanned to create a standard tessellation language (STL) file from which 3 groups of custom trays were designed and 3D printed with 0.0-mm (no relief), 1.0-mm, and 3.0-mm relief over the anterior ridge and median palatal suture. Definitive impressions using each of the 4 custom trays were made with a consistent volume of light-body polyvinyl siloxane impression material. The definitive impressions were scanned, and the STL files were superimposed to investigate the topographical differences among the groups, each with respect to the no relief, 3D-printed custom tray definitive impression. Mean volumetric differences for all 3 groups were measured in areas where relief was used and statistically analyzed with the Friedman test (α=.05).
Results:
No significant difference was found among any of the 3 groups of superimposed impressions in areas of no relief, 1.0-mm, and 3.0-mm relief (P=.558). The mean difference ±standard deviation for each comparison in regions of the anterior ridge and median palatal suture were 0.07 ±0.06 mm for no relief, -0.03 ±0.07 mm for the 1.0-mm tray relief, and -0.04 ±0.09 mm for the 3.0-mm tray relief. The negative values in mean difference indicated less compression of underlying tissues compared with the reference border molded urethane dimethacrylate custom tray impression.
Conclusions:
Although results showed less compression when compared with that of the control group, custom tray relief of 1.0 mm and 3.0 mm over the anterior residual alveolar ridge and median palatal suture did not significantly impact the resulting impression topography when compared with no relief custom trays.
