Publication

Abstract : Introduction: Accuracy of definitive impressions determines the quality of final prosthesis to a great extent. In conventional impression, elastic impression materials are used to replicate the anatomy and prosthesis is fabricated indirectly. Digital impression on the other hand gains popularity due to the advantages like 3D previsualisation, cost effectiveness and decreased time consumption. Aim: To review the existing reports, to bring forth the comprehensive overview on the comparative superiority of digital impression technique based on accuracy, patient acceptance, operators preference and time effectiveness when compared to conventional technique. Materials and Methods: Search strategy for this review was based on Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome(PICO) framework. An electronic search of articles published from 1980 to 2017 in PubMed, Medline and Cochrane via Ovid, along with additional hand searches were done. Data screening and extraction was performed in covidence systematic reviews of tware. Clinical and preclinical studies and randomised controlled trials which compared optical impression with conventional impressions based on accuracy, patient outcome and operator outcome were included in the study. Results: A total of 36 articles that complied fully with the inclusion criteria were evaluated. Among the 24 studies which compared digital and conventional impressions based on accuracy, 16 articles reported that digital impressions are superior to conventional impressions; however no statistical significance was mentioned. Based on patient preference, four articles concluded digital impression as the preferred choice. Eight articles assessed the operator preference and the outcome was in favour of digital impressions. Conclusion: This review has concisely summarised that digital impressions are superior to conventional impressions, without any statistically significant difference, based on assessment of accuracy, patient preference and operator preference.