COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS: DENTAL ARCH IMPRESSIONS AND INTRAORAL SCANNING

Luka Lesjak; Anita Fekonja

doi:10.17222/mit.2025.1538

Luka Lesjak University of Maribor, Faculty of Medicine, Taborska ulica 8, 2000 Maribor, Slovenija
Anita Fekonja Healthcare Centre Maribor, Ulica Talcev 9, 2000 Maribor, Slovenija https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2412-0432

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17222/mit.2025.1538

Keywords: intraoral scanning, alginat impression, anatomical detail, comfort

Abstract

This study compared traditional alginate impressions with intraoral scanning (IOS) in terms of time efficiency, anatomical detail, cost, and patient comfort. Twenty patients underwent both impression techniques using Aroma Fast Plus alginate and the 3Shape Trios 3 scanner. The resulting plaster and 3D-printed models were assessed digitally, and patient experiences were evaluated using questionnaires. The mean time for alginate impressions was 283.57 s (SD = 37.66), while IOS took 358.86 s (SD = 44.13), a statistically significant difference (t = –4.679, p = 0.003). Despite the longer IOS time, the digital workflow allowed for simplified logistics, reduced manual labor, and immediate transmission of the scan files to the laboratory. Anatomical detail was found to be comparable overall, although alginate impressions captured vestibular soft tissue more extensively (p < 0.001), while digital scans more precisely reproduced the dental morphology in specific regions, such as interproximal spaces and cervical crown contours. Patient responses strongly favored 3D scanning. Comfort scores were significantly higher for IOS than for alginate (mean = 8.25 versus 6.07, respectively), and participants with a pronounced gag reflex reported less discomfort during digital scanning. All participants preferred the digital method over traditional impressions. While alginate impressions remain advantageous for soft tissue capture the digital workflow proved more efficient and better tolerated by patients. These findings support the broader clinical use of IOS in dentistry.

References

1. F. Mangano, A. Luongo, G. Migliario, S. Mortellaro, F. Mangano, Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature, BMC Oral, Health, 17 (2017), 149, doi:10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x
2. T. Grünheid, B. L. McCarthy, B. B. Larson, Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop., 146 (2014) 5, 673–682, doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023
3. H. B. Jacob, G. D. Wyatt, P. H. Buschang, Reliability and validity of intraoral and extraoral scanners, Prog. Orthod., 16 (2015), 38, doi:10.1186/s40510-015-0108-7
4. M. G. Wiranto, W. P. Engelbrecht, H. E. Tutein Nolthenius, W. J. van der Meer, Y. Ren, Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop., 143 (2013) 1, 140–147, doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.06.018
5. P. Nagar, D. A. Prasad, S. K. Satapathy, T. Vigneswaran, M. Francis, A. Vijaysingh Jadhav, Comparative study of conventional impressions vs intraoral scanning for complete denture fabrication, J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci., 16 (2024) Suppl. 4, S3746–S3748, doi:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1213_24
6. F. Zhang, K. J. Suh, K. M. Lee, Validity of intraoral scans compared with plaster models: an in-vivo comparison of dental measurements and 3D surface analysis, PLoS One, 11 (2016) 6, e0157713, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157713
7. G. J. Christensen, Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions?, J. Am. Dent. Assoc., 139 (2008) 6, 761–763, doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0258
8. R. B. Price, J. D. Gerrow, E. J. Sutow, R. MacSween, The dimensional accuracy of 12 impression material and die stone combinations, Int. J. Prosthodont., 4 (1991), 169–174.
9. R. G. Luthardt, P. Kühmstedt, M. H. Walter, A new method for the computer-aided evaluation of three-dimensional changes in gypsum materials, Dent. Mater., 19 (2003), 19–24.
10. N. Bhatia, S. Muthuswamy Pandian, Evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch impressions between three different intraoral scanners and conventional impressions: a prospective in vivo study, J. Dent. Res. Dent. Clin. Dent. Prospects, 18 (2024) 1, 77–84, doi:10.34172/joddd.40841
11. C. Bosoni, M. Nieri, D. Franceschi, B. Q. Souki, L. Franchi, V. Giuntini, Comparison between digital and conventional impression techniques in children on preference, time and comfort: a crossover randomized controlled trial, Orthod. Craniofac. Res., 26 (2023) 4, 585–590, doi:10.1111/ocr.12648
12. R. Patel, A. Pradhan, A. R. Perrotti, B. Wang, Evaluation of patient comfort comparing conventional and digital impressions: a clinical study, J. Prosthet. Dent., 121 (2019) 5, 740–745, doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.09.014
13. L. Burhardt, C. Livas, W. Kerdijk, W. J. van der Meer, Y. Ren, Treatment comfort, time perception, and preference for conventional and digital impression techniques: a comparative study in young patients, Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop., 150 (2016) 2, 261–267, doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.12.027
14. H. A. Bahammam, Conventional vs. digital impression: comfort level, preferences, and acceptance of treatment time among orthodontic patients, Open Dent. J., 16 (2022) Suppl. 4, doi:10.2174/18742106-v16-e2208181
15. A. Mahrous, F. Alonaizan, F. Vohra, R. Aldegheishem, Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions in partially edentulous maxillectomy patients: A clinical comparative study, J. Prosthet. Dent., 130 (2023) 6, 837–844, doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.06.012
16. K. Bošnjak, B. Kocjančič, D. Dolinar, B. Pompe, Uporaba intraoralnega skenerja za analizo površin pogačice pri totalni artroplastiki kolena, Mater. Tehnol. 55 (2021) 1, doi:10.17222/mit.2020.115