IADR Abstract Archives
Different Impression Techniques in Periodontally Compromised Dentitions: A Pilot Study
Objectives: Impression taking of patients with a periodontally compromised dentition (PCD) is often challenging when it comes to the fabrication of prosthodontic restorations and orthodontic devices. Because of numerous undercuts in these patients, conventional impression material often tears out while removing the impression resulting in not correctly displayed interdental areas (IA). To analyze the ability of an impression technique to represent IA in PCD, one conventional impression technique and four intraoral scanning systems were investigated in vivo.
Methods: From July to October 2019, ten patients were examined with PCD in the Department of Prosthodontics at the Justus-Liebig-University Giessen. One conventional impression (EXAlence, (CVI)) and four digital impressions (True Definition (TRU), Trios3 (TIO), Primescan (PRI) and CS 3600 (CAR)) were acquired in each patient. For CVI, models were cast with class IV plaster and STL datasets were generated in a laboratory scanner (ATOS). The IAs of each STL datasets of all five groups were analysed with CAD software (GOM Inspect). The height from the papilla to the contact point was determined for each impression as total IA. Subsequently, the percentage of displayed IA in relation to the total IA was calculated. Statistical analysis was performed by Median test.
Results: With the digital impressions, a significant higher percentage of IA compared to CVI (p< .05) was recorded. TRU displayed the highest percentage of IA (median, confidence interval: 71.09%, 59.29-69.44%) followed by PRI (46.92% 42.11-53.25%), CAR (40.09%, 38.45-50.27%), TIO (28.52%, 35.65-47.50) and CVI (.00%, 11.09-20.87%).
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this pilot study, the IAs of PCD were better displayed by the digital impression techniques than by CVI. In particular, TRU with the wavefront sampling technology can be recommended for these patients.
Methods: From July to October 2019, ten patients were examined with PCD in the Department of Prosthodontics at the Justus-Liebig-University Giessen. One conventional impression (EXAlence, (CVI)) and four digital impressions (True Definition (TRU), Trios3 (TIO), Primescan (PRI) and CS 3600 (CAR)) were acquired in each patient. For CVI, models were cast with class IV plaster and STL datasets were generated in a laboratory scanner (ATOS). The IAs of each STL datasets of all five groups were analysed with CAD software (GOM Inspect). The height from the papilla to the contact point was determined for each impression as total IA. Subsequently, the percentage of displayed IA in relation to the total IA was calculated. Statistical analysis was performed by Median test.
Results: With the digital impressions, a significant higher percentage of IA compared to CVI (p< .05) was recorded. TRU displayed the highest percentage of IA (median, confidence interval: 71.09%, 59.29-69.44%) followed by PRI (46.92% 42.11-53.25%), CAR (40.09%, 38.45-50.27%), TIO (28.52%, 35.65-47.50) and CVI (.00%, 11.09-20.87%).
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this pilot study, the IAs of PCD were better displayed by the digital impression techniques than by CVI. In particular, TRU with the wavefront sampling technology can be recommended for these patients.
