Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 28, 2025
Measuring the Complete-arch Distortion of an Optical Dental Impression
Published on: May 30, 2019
Conventional and digital impressions for complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: time, implant quantity
Ana Larisse Carneiro Pereira1, Vitória Ramos Medeiros1, Maria de Fátima Trindade Pinto Campos1
1Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Natal, RN, Brazil.
Purpose:
To evaluate and compare the effect of impression type (conventional vs digital) and the number of implants on the time from the impressions to the generation of working casts of mandibular implant-supported fixed complete-arch frameworks, as well as on patient satisfaction.
Materials And Methods:
17 participants, 3 or 4 implants, received 2 types of digital impression methods (DI) and conventional (CI). In DI, two techniques were performed: scanning with the scan bodies (SC) and scanning with a device attached to the scan bodies (SD) (BR 10 2019 026265 6). In CI, the making of a solid index (SI) and open-tray impression (OT) were used. The outcomes were used to evaluate the time and the participant satisfaction with conventional and digital impressions. The time was evaluated through the timing of the time obtained in the workflow in the conventional and digital impression. The effect of the number of implants on time was also assessed. Satisfaction was assessed through a questionnaire based on seven. The Wilcoxon test used to identify the statistical difference between the groups in terms of time. The Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the relationship between the time and the number of implants. Fisher's test was used to assess the patient satisfaction (P < .05).
Results:
The time with DI was shorter than with CI (DI, x̃=02:58; CI, x̃=31:48) (P < .0001). The arches rehabilitated with 3 implants required shorter digital impression time (3: x̃=05:36; 4: x̃=09:16) (P < .0001). Regarding satisfaction, the DI was more comfortable and pain-free than the CI (P < .005).
Conclusion:
Digital impressions required shorter chair time and had higher patient acceptance than conventional impressions.
