Digital vs. Conventional Impressions on Implants

Abstract

In today's survey, a comparison between the two techniques of impression, the digital one and the conventional one, was carried out to evaluate which of the two options is commonly considered more accurate and more reliable in the context of implant-prosthetic studies, analyzing both methods and describing with a quick reference, also to the materials used in both techniques. The goal is to provide the clinician with a framework to understand which impression technique has the best performance for patients and for daily clinical activity. The literature on the accuracy of the impressions generated by scanners applied, above all in full-arch rehabilitation on implants, is very scarce and often contradictory. Objectives: The present study focuses on the comparison of the accuracy, in the context of implant-prosthetic field, between the innovative method for making digital impressions and the traditional method of conventional impressions, also considering which one of them is more comfortable for the patient. Moreover, a comparison between conventional techniques is performed to understand which one is more accurate. Materials and Methods: The PubMed, MEDLINE and CRAI library medical databases were mainly used for the literature research. Conclusion: Digital impression for a single restoration or for a 3-4 elements bridges on implants is as accurate as conventional impression. In the rehabilitation of whole arches, it has been stated that conventional impression is more accurate than digital one, even if some authors claim that the digital one is no less precise than the conventional one. Among the conventional impressions, the indirect technique is the most accurate. The most comfortable technique for patients is the digital one.