Evaluation of Accuracy of Traditional and Digital Impression Techniques in Full Mouth Rehabilitation: An Original Research.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate and compare the accuracy, procedural efficiency, and patient satisfaction between traditional and digital impression techniques utilized in full mouth rehabilitation.

METHODS

A randomized clinical trial involving 40 patients requiring full mouth rehabilitation was conducted. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: traditional impression group (n = 20) using polyvinyl siloxane, and digital impression group (n = 20) utilizing intraoral scanners. Inclusion criteria were adults requiring full mouth restoration without systemic diseases affecting oral conditions. Exclusion criteria included severe periodontal disease, pregnancy, and unwillingness to participate. Parameters assessed included marginal fit (μm), accuracy (surface deviation analysis), procedural efficiency (procedure duration), and patient comfort using a visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Digital impressions showed significantly superior marginal fit accuracy (digital: 24.5 ± 3.8 μm; traditional: 43.2 ± 5.7 μm; P < .001), precision (surface deviation: digital: 19.8 ± 4.2 μm; traditional: 37.4 ± 6.1 μm; P < .001), and procedural efficiency (digital: 12.6 ± 2.4 mins; traditional: 25.8 ± 3.9 mins; P < .001). Patient satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the digital impression group (VAS: digital: 8.6 ± 1.2; traditional: 6.1 ± 1.4; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Digital impressions provided superior accuracy, efficiency, and patient satisfaction compared to traditional methods, making digital techniques preferable for full mouth rehabilitation. Clinicians can confidently adopt digital impression technology, enhancing procedural accuracy, efficiency, and patient comfort, significantly impacting treatment quality in comprehensive dental restorations.