Digital Versus Conventional Impressions
Objective: The purpose of this research was to compare and contrast, in vivo, the three-dimensional (3D) dental impressions produced by digital and traditional methods. Materials and Methods: This research was comprised of ten individuals who had full natural teeth. The subjects' molars were d...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
2025-06-01
|
| Series: | Dentistry 3000 |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dentistry3000.pitt.edu/ojs/dentistry3000/article/view/929 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849431074170470400 |
|---|---|
| author | Mohammad Munthir Abdulrazzaq Mithaq R. Mohammed |
| author_facet | Mohammad Munthir Abdulrazzaq Mithaq R. Mohammed |
| author_sort | Mohammad Munthir Abdulrazzaq |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
Objective: The purpose of this research was to compare and contrast, in vivo, the three-dimensional (3D) dental impressions produced by digital and traditional methods. Materials and Methods: This research was comprised of ten individuals who had full natural teeth. The subjects' molars were digitally imprinted using an intra-oral scanner (Helios 600 3D). The double-mix impression method (SILAXIL BOX & PROTESIL LIGHT) was also used to create a silicone imprint. The Lava COS system exported the stereolithography (STL) data immediately, and a three-dimensional (3D) intra-oral scanner recorded the STL data of a plaster model created from a silicone imprint. The 3D assessment program captured the STL files. It overlaid them using the best-fit-algorithm approach for each impression technique (least-squares method, PolyWorks, InnovMetric program). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the two methods with respect to 3D data. Results: Differences between digital impressions were less noticeable when comparing them to silicone impressions, according to a visual analysis of stacked datasets. Using a digital imprint approach yielded more confirmation (0.014± 0.02 mm) compared to a traditional method (0.023 ± 0.01 mm). Conclusion: According to this in vivo investigation, digital impression technology outperforms traditional impression techniques.
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-de8498dc8a0f434dac0f46de1d70c98a |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2167-8677 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-06-01 |
| publisher | University Library System, University of Pittsburgh |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Dentistry 3000 |
| spelling | doaj-art-de8498dc8a0f434dac0f46de1d70c98a2025-08-20T03:27:44ZengUniversity Library System, University of PittsburghDentistry 30002167-86772025-06-0113110.5195/d3000.2025.929Digital Versus Conventional ImpressionsMohammad Munthir Abdulrazzaq0Mithaq R. Mohammed 1Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Al-Iraqia University, Baghdad, IraqDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Al-Iraqia University, Baghdad, Iraq Objective: The purpose of this research was to compare and contrast, in vivo, the three-dimensional (3D) dental impressions produced by digital and traditional methods. Materials and Methods: This research was comprised of ten individuals who had full natural teeth. The subjects' molars were digitally imprinted using an intra-oral scanner (Helios 600 3D). The double-mix impression method (SILAXIL BOX & PROTESIL LIGHT) was also used to create a silicone imprint. The Lava COS system exported the stereolithography (STL) data immediately, and a three-dimensional (3D) intra-oral scanner recorded the STL data of a plaster model created from a silicone imprint. The 3D assessment program captured the STL files. It overlaid them using the best-fit-algorithm approach for each impression technique (least-squares method, PolyWorks, InnovMetric program). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the two methods with respect to 3D data. Results: Differences between digital impressions were less noticeable when comparing them to silicone impressions, according to a visual analysis of stacked datasets. Using a digital imprint approach yielded more confirmation (0.014± 0.02 mm) compared to a traditional method (0.023 ± 0.01 mm). Conclusion: According to this in vivo investigation, digital impression technology outperforms traditional impression techniques. http://dentistry3000.pitt.edu/ojs/dentistry3000/article/view/929Digital DentistryDigital impressionConventional impressionin vivothree-dimensional |
| spellingShingle | Mohammad Munthir Abdulrazzaq Mithaq R. Mohammed Digital Versus Conventional Impressions Dentistry 3000 Digital Dentistry Digital impression Conventional impression in vivo three-dimensional |
| title | Digital Versus Conventional Impressions |
| title_full | Digital Versus Conventional Impressions |
| title_fullStr | Digital Versus Conventional Impressions |
| title_full_unstemmed | Digital Versus Conventional Impressions |
| title_short | Digital Versus Conventional Impressions |
| title_sort | digital versus conventional impressions |
| topic | Digital Dentistry Digital impression Conventional impression in vivo three-dimensional |
| url | http://dentistry3000.pitt.edu/ojs/dentistry3000/article/view/929 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mohammadmunthirabdulrazzaq digitalversusconventionalimpressions AT mithaqrmohammed digitalversusconventionalimpressions |