Next Article in Journal
The Application of Intra-Articulr Injections for Management of the Consequences of Disc Displacement without Reduction
Previous Article in Journal
High Mobility and STIs/HIV among Women Informal Cross Border Traders in Southern Mozambique: Exploring Knowledge, Risk Perception, and Sexual Behaviors
Previous Article in Special Issue
Repeatability of Freehand Implantations Supported with Universal Plastic Sleeves—In Vitro Study
Open AccessArticle

Digital versus Conventional Impression Taking Focusing on Interdental Areas: A Clinical Trial

1
Dental Clinic, Department of Prosthodontics, Justus Liebig University, 35392 Giessen, Germany
2
Dental Clinic, Department of Orthodontics, Justus Liebig University, 35392 Giessen, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(13), 4725; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134725
Received: 25 May 2020 / Revised: 18 June 2020 / Accepted: 28 June 2020 / Published: 30 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Digital Dentistry for Oral Health)
Due to the high prevalence of periodontitis, dentists have to face a larger group of patients with periodontally compromised dentitions (PCDs) characterized by pathologic tooth migration and malocclusion. Impression taking in these patients is challenging due to several undercuts and extensive interdental areas (IAs). The aim of this clinical trial was to analyze the ability of analog and digital impression techniques to display the IAs in PCDs. The upper and the lower jaws of 30 patients (n = 60, age: 48–87 years) were investigated with one conventional impression (CVI) using polyvinyl siloxane and four digital impressions with intraoral scanners (IOSs), namely True Definition (TRU), Primescan (PRI), CS 3600 (CAR), and TRIOS 3 (TIO). The gypsum models of the CVIs were digitalized using a laboratory scanner. Subsequently, the percentage of the displayed IAs in relation to the absolute IAs was calculated for the five impression techniques in a three-dimensional measuring software. Significant differences were observed among the impression techniques (except between PRI and CAR, p-value < 0.05). TRU displayed the highest percentage of IAs, followed by PRI, CAR, TIO, and CVI. The results indicated that the IOSs are superior to CVI regarding the ability to display the IAs in PCDs. View Full-Text
Keywords: intraoral scanners; periodontally compromised dentition; full-arch impression; aligner treatment; orthodontics; digital prosthodontics; clinical trial intraoral scanners; periodontally compromised dentition; full-arch impression; aligner treatment; orthodontics; digital prosthodontics; clinical trial
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Schlenz, M.A.; Schubert, V.; Schmidt, A.; Wöstmann, B.; Ruf, S.; Klaus, K. Digital versus Conventional Impression Taking Focusing on Interdental Areas: A Clinical Trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4725.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop