Digital impression system-A New virtual generation a study when compared with conventional impression system

Authors

  • Yash Desai  Yerala Medical Trust Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Keywords:

Digital Scanner, Software, Camera

Abstract

Digital impression has been introduced into dentistry since 1980’s. To overcome the difficulties occurred by conventional impression techniques to the patient and the practitioner, digital impressions with (intraoral scanner) IOS and CAD/CAM (Computer-aided design and manufacturing) technologies have been introduced in today’s dental practice. In such technologies different types of lights are used to capture images. Diode lasers have been used which produce invisible light at near infrared wavelength ranging from 805nm to1,064nm which are used for capturing soft tissues only. After the image has been captured, the final image is either stored in the system and used later on for fabrication at chairside or the image is sent to milling unit for fabrication of prosthesis or it is digitally transmitted to a laboratory. However different technologies have their different system for recording centric relation. Patient comfort and time saving procedure are the advantages of this digital impression technique.

Statistical analysis: The analysis was performed with ‘Wilcoxon Rank Test’ where p<0.05.

Results: There were remarkable differences between conventional and digital impression techniques (p<0.05) in terms of total working time & processing steps.

Conclusion: The overall study of this article is to make the practitioners understand the importance of clinical application of digital impression technique as well as the patients preferred digital impression technique more than conventional impression technique.

References

  1. Sjogren G, Molin M, Van Dijken JW. A 10-year prospective evaluation of CAD/CAM-manufactured (CEREC) ceramic inlays cemented with a chemically cured or dual-cured resin composite. Int J Prosthodont. 2004;17(2):241-245
  2. Lee H, Ercoli C, Funkenbusch PD, Feng C. Effect of subgingival depth of implant placement on the dimensional accuracy of the implant impression: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;99(2):107-113. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60026-8
  3. Brosky ME, Pesun IJ, Lowder PD, Delong R, Hodges JS. Laser digitization of casts to determine the effect of tray selection and cast formation technique on accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87(2):204-209
  4. Burns J, Palmer R, Howe L, Wilson R. Accuracy of open tray implant impressions: an in vitro comparison of stock versus custom trays. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89(3):250-255
  5. Birnbaum N, Aaronson HB, Stevens C, Cohen B. 3D digital scanners: a high-tech approach to more accurate dental impressions. Inside Dentistry. 2009;5.
  6. Powers J. In: Craig’s Restorative Dental Materials. Powers J, editor. St Louis: Mosby; 2006. Impression materials; pp. 275-312.
  7. Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. JADA. 2009;140.
  8. Henkel GL. A comparison of fixed prostheses generated from conventional vs digitally scanned dental impressions. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2007;28:422-424.
  9. De La Cruz JE, Funkenbusch PD, Ercoli C, Moss ME, Graser GN, Tallents RH. Verification jig for implant supported prosthesis: a comparison of standard impressions with verification jigs made of different materials. J Prosthet Dent.:330-335.
  10. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent. 2010;38:554-559.
  11. Brawek PK, Wolfart S, Endres L, Kirsten A, Reich S. The clinical accuracy of single crowns exclusively fabricated by digital workflow the comparison of two systems. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(9).
  12. Karl M, Shubinski P, Taylor T. Effect of intraoral scanning on the passivity of fit of implant-supported fixed partial prostheses. Quintessence Int. 2012;43:555-562.
  13. Polido WD. Digital impressions and handling of digital models: the future of dentistry. Dental Press J Orthod. 2010;15(5):18-22.
  14. Christensen GJ: Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140:1301-1304.
  15. Christensen GJ: Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:761-763.

International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology

Downloads

Published

2018-04-30

Issue

Volume 4, Issue 5, March-April-2018

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) IJSRST

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

[1]
Yash Desai, " Digital impression system-A New virtual generation a study when compared with conventional impression system, International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology(IJSRST), Online ISSN : 2395-602X, Print ISSN : 2395-6011, Volume 4, Issue 5, pp.649-653, March-April-2018.