Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
A BSTRACT Background: In the realm of fixed prosthodontics, the transition from conventional to digital impressions has been a subject of ongoing debate. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of digital versus conventional impressions in terms of accuracy and efficiency. Materials and Methods: Twenty patients requiring fixed prosthodontic treatment were selected for this study. Each patient received both digital and conventional impressions. The digital impressions were obtained using an intraoral scanner, while conventional impressions were taken using polyvinyl siloxane material. The impressions were then used to fabricate fixed prostheses for each patient. Accuracy was assessed through measurement of marginal fit using a standardized technique, and efficiency was evaluated based on time taken for impression procedures. Results: The mean marginal discrepancy for digital impressions was found to be 38 micrometers (±5), whereas for conventional impressions, it was 45 micrometers (±7). Additionally, the average time taken for digital impressions was 12 minutes, compared to 20 minutes for conventional impressions. Conclusion: Digital impressions demonstrated superior accuracy and efficiency compared to conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics.
Raja et al. (Mon,) studied this question.