Page 22 - GP Fall 2024

Digital Impressions vs. Traditional Impressions:
A Comprehensive Comparison

Authors: Aanchal Parmar, DDS, Athman Sivaseelan, Angela M. De Bartolo, DDS and Analia Veitz-Keenan, DDS, FAGD

Introduction Traditional Impression Methods
Impressions in restorative dentistry are paramount for accurately Contrastingly, traditional impression methods involve using vis-
reproducing a patient’s dentition, which is essential for the effec- cous materials that patients often find uncomfortable (Figure 3).
tive treatment and rehabilitation of oral health. The dawn of the
digital age has introduced a new competitor to the conventional
methodologies—digital impressions. Recent improvements within
the digital workflow model have enhanced various aspects of the
impression process, including reduced costs, shorter working times,
and increased efficiency. This paper aims to evaluate the advantag-
1
es, disadvantages, and overall effectiveness of digital impressions
compared to traditional impression methods in restorative dentistry.

Background
Historically, dental impressions have been an integral part of den-
tal medicine, providing dentists with the necessary molds to create
various dental prosthetics. Traditional impressions have relied on
physical materials such as alginate or silicone to create a negative
replica of the oral structures. However, technological advancements
have given rise to digital impression technologies, which aim to
streamline the impression process and improve outcomes. The evo-
lution from traditional to digital methods represents a significant Figure 3. Traditional impression materials.
shift in dental practice, reflecting broader trends toward digitaliza-
tion in healthcare. These materials require time to set within the mouth, which can
cause anxiety and discomfort, particularly for those with a strong
Digital Impression Technologies gag reflex. Moreover, the physical nature of these materials can
Digital impression technologies, including various intraoral scan- lead to distortions and inaccuracies, requiring retakes that consume
ners, are revolutionizing how impressions are taken in dentistry. additional time and resources. Despite these challenges, traditional
These devices capture continuous optical images of the oral cav- impressions have been a reliable method for decades (Figure 4), and
ity, which are then stitched together to create a 3D digital model their familiarity makes them a fallback option in cases where digital
(Figures 1,2). These technologies promise to enhance the detail and technology may not be applicable.
accuracy of dental impressions and improve the patient’s experi-
ence during the procedure. These digital tools align with modern
dentistry’s increasing demand for precision and efficiency.

Figure 4. Traditional dental impressions.
Accuracy and Precision
One of the main selling points of digital impressions
is their purported superior accuracy and precision
over traditional methods (Figure 5). Studies have

Figure 1. Intraoral scanning to create the digital models.

Figure 2. Scanning of a different area.

www.nysagd.org l Fall 2024 l GP 22 Figure 5. 3D Digital models.