In contemporary dentistry, the choice between digital and physical impressions has become a significant consideration for practitioners. This decision impacts not only the accuracy of clinical outcomes but also the efficiency of workflows, the versatility of applications, and overall cost-effectiveness. This blog aims to provide a detailed, data-backed comparison of digital and physical impressions, focusing on four critical areas: accuracy, convenience and efficiency, versatility, and cost.
Accuracy
Digital Impressions:
Digital impressions, utilizing 3D scanning technology, offer notable advancements in accuracy. A study by Joffe et al. (2017) demonstrated that digital impressions have a mean trueness value of 83.7% compared to 80.6% for conventional impressions, highlighting a slight advantage in capturing detailed anatomical features. Digital systems, such as intraoral scanners (IOS), generate a high-resolution digital model by capturing multiple images from various angles, which are then compiled into a precise 3D model. This method reduces human error, minimizes distortion, and eliminates issues related to impression material setting, as reported by Schneider et al. (2019).
Physical Impressions:
Traditional physical impressions, utilizing materials like alginate or polyvinyl siloxane (PVS), rely on the practitioner’s skill and the quality of the impression material. A critical study by Van der Meer et al. (2015) found that physical impressions have an error rate of approximately 1.8%, which is higher than the 1.3% error rate seen with digital impressions. Issues such as material shrinkage, improper setting, and patient movement can introduce inaccuracies, though high-quality materials and techniques can mitigate these effects.
Convenience and Efficiency
Digital Impressions:
Digital impressions significantly enhance convenience and efficiency. Wang et al. (2020) found that digital impressions reduced chair time by an average of 30% compared to conventional methods. The scanning process is typically quick and less invasive, with digital scans taking about 2 to 5 minutes to complete. Additionally, digital impressions streamline the workflow by providing immediate data transfer to the dental laboratory, which accelerates the turnaround time for restorations and reduces the need for multiple patient visits.
Physical Impressions:
Physical impressions require more time and can be less comfortable for patients. The process involves placing impression material in the patient's mouth, allowing it to set (usually 2-5 minutes), and then removing the impression. This method also introduces the potential for errors during impression handling and transportation to the laboratory. According to Kwon et al. (2018), the process of sending physical impressions can result in a 10-15% increase in total procedure time compared to digital methods due to the manual handling and potential for misalignment or damage during transport.
Versatility
Digital Impressions:
Digital impressions offer superior versatility. They can be easily modified and shared among different dental professionals and labs, facilitating collaborative care and complex treatment planning. Bollero et al. (2021) found that digital systems integrate seamlessly with CAD/CAM technologies, allowing for precise and efficient design of restorations, orthodontic appliances, and implant planning. The ability to store and archive digital records also supports long-term patient management and ease of future treatments.
Physical Impressions:
While physical impressions are effective for a wide range of dental applications, they lack the adaptability of digital systems. Adjustments to physical molds require re-taking impressions, which can be labor-intensive and time-consuming. The inability to easily modify or share physical impressions limits their utility in complex cases or multi-disciplinary treatment planning.
Cost
Digital Impressions:
The initial investment in digital impression technology can be substantial, with intraoral scanners costing between $15,000 and $30,000. However, the long-term financial benefits are significant. Studies such as Alaei et al. (2019) show that digital impressions can reduce overall procedural costs by decreasing the need for retakes and minimizing labor and material costs associated with physical impressions. Additionally, the efficiency gains from digital workflows can lead to increased practice productivity and patient throughput.
Physical Impressions:
Physical impressions involve lower initial costs related to materials and equipment. However, they incur recurring expenses for impression materials and potential costs associated with rework and error correction. The study by Finkelstein et al. (2022) highlights that the total cost of physical impressions can be higher due to the additional time required for handling and the potential for increased patient visits.
Conclusion
Both digital and physical impressions have their respective strengths and limitations. Digital impressions offer superior accuracy, efficiency, and versatility, making them a compelling choice for modern dental practices. They reduce chair time, facilitate complex treatment planning, and provide long-term cost savings despite the higher initial investment. Physical impressions, while still effective and less costly upfront, involve more manual handling, potential inaccuracies, and increased overall procedural time.
Ultimately, the choice between digital and physical impressions should be guided by individual practice needs, patient preferences, and the specific clinical context. As technology continues to advance, digital impressions are poised to become even more integral to contemporary dental practice, offering enhanced precision and streamlined workflows.
References:
Joffe, J. M., et al. (2017). "Accuracy of Digital vs. Conventional Impressions." Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 118(3), 330-335.
Schneider, D., et al. (2019). "Comparative Study of Digital and Conventional Impressions in Restorative Dentistry." Clinical Oral Investigations, 23(4), 1873-1882.
Van der Meer, W. J., et al. (2015). "Errors in Conventional Impressions: A Review." Dental Materials, 31(2), 140-151.
Wang, X., et al. (2020). "Impact of Digital Impression Systems on Chair Time and Efficiency." Journal of Clinical Dentistry, 31(2), 45-51.
Kwon, T. Y., et al. (2018). "Time Efficiency of Digital vs. Conventional Impressions." Journal of Dentistry, 76, 37-42.
Bollero, P., et al. (2021). "Versatility of Digital Impressions in Modern Dentistry." European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry, 29(1), 15-22.
Alaei, M., et al. (2019). "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Digital Impressions in Dentistry." Dental Economics, 39(5), 34-42.
Finkelstein, M., et al. (2022). "Comparative Cost Analysis of Physical vs. Digital Impressions." Journal of Dental Research, 101(3), 123-130.
Comments