"A comparative study of conventional impressions versus intraoral scanning in prosthodontics"

المؤلفون

  • Mabrouka Ahmed Almatlub Department of Dental technology Medical Technology Collage, University of Sabratha Surman, Libya Author
  • Aesha Almabrouk Alabyad Department of Dental technology Medical Technology Collage, University of Sabratha Surman, Libya Author
  • Aya Alrbaey Department of Dental technology Medical Technology Collage, University of Sabratha Surman, Libya Author
  • Hajer Saeed Department of Dental technology Medical Technology Collage, University of Sabratha Surman, Libya Author
  • Nashwa Habhab Department of Dental technology Medical Technology Collage, University of Sabratha Surman, Libya Author
  • Abrar Sultan Department of Dental technology Medical Technology Collage, University of Sabratha Surman, Libya Author
  • Maram Sareer Department of Dental technology Medical Technology Collage, University of Sabratha Surman, Libya Author
  • Abeer Hamhoom Department of Dental technology Medical Technology Collage, University of Sabratha Surman, Libya Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.65405/xv59he28

الكلمات المفتاحية:

digital dentistry, intraoral scanning, Conventional Impressions, Accuracy, Patient Comfort, Libya, western region, dental education

الملخص

Background: The transition from conventional to digital workflows is one of the most significant shifts in modern dentistry. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of traditional versus digital impression techniques, focusing on accuracy, patient experience, and workflow efficiency.

Objective: This study aims to compare conventional impression techniques with intraoral scanning using modern technologies in terms of accuracy, efficiency, patient comfort, and clinical outcomes in fixed prosthodontics and orthodontics.

Methodology: A structured questionnaire and clinical observations were conducted with a sample of 48 practitioners, including general dentists, specialists, and dental technicians with diverse field experience. Data were analyzed to identify trends in clinical adoption, economic feasibility, and technical challenges.

Results: The findings reveal a decisive professional consensus (90%) on the superior accuracy of digital methods. Digital impressions significantly reduced patient discomfort (35% of traditional method issues) and streamlined clinic-laboratory communication. Notably, 69% of participants justified the high investment costs of digital equipment through improved clinical outcomes. However, a "digital gap" was identified, as 79% of practitioners do not yet utilize specialized design software, largely due to training deficits and software costs.

Conclusion: While digital technologies are fundamentally enhancing the precision and comfort of dental procedures, their full potential remains untapped. The study emphasizes that the future of digitalization in dentistry depends not only on equipment acquisition but also on bridging the skills gap through integrated educational workshops and continuous professional training.

التنزيلات

تنزيل البيانات ليس متاحًا بعد.

المراجع

The academy of Prosthodontics. The glossary of prosthodontic terms: Ninth edition. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117 (5S): e1-e105..

Alharbi, N., Osman, R., & Wismeijer, D. (2021). Mechanical behavior and fracture loads of 3D printed complete dentures_. The International Journal of Prosthodontics, 34(3), 322–329. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.6928.

Bilir, H., Yilmaz, B., Sevimay, M., & Ozkurt, Z. (2020). Clinical evaluation of digital impression systems in prosthodontics: Accuracy and efficiency compared with conventional methods. Journal of Prosthodontics, 29(4), 340–347.

Elfallah, K. I., Almasalati, S. A., Mahjoub, H. E., & Bogazia, S. M. A. M. (2024). Knowledge and attitude regarding designing removable partial denture among interns and dental students; Dental schools in Benghazi, Libya, Biomaterials Journal, 3(1), 3–13.

Joda, T., Zarone, F., & Ferrari, M. (2020). The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review. BMC Oral Health, 17(1), 124. doi.org

Papadopoulos, M. A., Koumrouli, S., & Livas, C. (2021). Accuracy of intraoral scanning and 3D printing in the fabrication of orthodontic appliances: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(11), 2419. doi.org

Sailer, I., Makarov, N. A., Thoma, D. S., Zwahlen, M., & Pjetursson, B. E. (2019). All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 30(Suppl 19), 624–642.

Schimmel, M., Müller, F., Suter, V., & Buser, D. (2021). Digital vs conventional impressions for complete dentures: A systematic review_. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 126(4), 461–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.08.013

Siqueira, R., Galli, M., Chen, Z., Huang, B., & Wang, H. L. (2020). Intraoral scanning reduces procedure time and improves patient comfort compared to conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry, 103, 103494. doi.org

Yuzbasioglu, E., Kurt, H., Turunc, R., & Bilir, H. (2014). Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: Evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health, 14, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-10

Zayed, S. M., Emera, R. M., & Alaraby, H. A. (2024). Comparative evaluation of occlusal force distribution and wear of occlusal surface in 3D-printed versus conventional implant-retained mandibular overdentures: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Prosthodontics, 33(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13654.

Zitzmann, N. U., Matthisson, L., Ohla, H., & Joda, T. (2020). Digital undergraduate education in dentistry: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(9), 3269. doi.org.

التنزيلات

منشور

2026-08-17

كيفية الاقتباس

"A comparative study of conventional impressions versus intraoral scanning in prosthodontics". (2026). مجلة الفاروق للعلوم, 2(ملحق 3), 1850-1859. https://doi.org/10.65405/xv59he28