Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 9, 2025
Measuring the Complete-arch Distortion of an Optical Dental Impression
Published on: May 30, 2019
Intraoral optical impression versus conventional impression for fully edentulous maxilla: an in vivo comparative
Aim:
The aim of the present in vivo study was to compare the clinical trueness of primary mucostatic impressions obtained either by a classical alginate or an optical intraoral scanner technique in patients with a fully edentulous maxilla.
Materials And Methods:
A total of 30 patients with a fully edentulous maxilla were included in the study and underwent both conventional impressions and intraoral optical impressions (Trios 3). The conventional impressions were casted and the resulting plaster casts were digitized using a desktop scanner (Imetric D104i). These digitized impressions were superimposed over the optical impressions to compare the differences between the two data sets. Statistical analyses were performed to identify relevant deviations.
Results:
For the 30 intraoral impressions, 80.88% of the surface areas were below the tolerance threshold of 25 µm and were thus considered similar to the areas scanned with the desktop scanner from the reference plaster cast. Interestingly, the differences (19.12% of the surface areas) were localized in depressible areas such as the vestibule, soft palate, incisive papilla, and flabby ridges. These locations were consistent with the mean of positive differences of +22.8 µm, indicating deformation or less compression with the use of the intraoral scanner.
Conclusions:
The digital primary impression of the fully edentulous maxilla can be considered similar to the conventional alginate impression except in the depressible areas. Considering the mucostatic objective of such a primary impression, one may consider the optical impression to be more accurate than the conventional one.
