Comparison of different impression techniques for edentulous jaws using three-dimensional analysis
10.4047/jap.2019.11.3.179
- Author:
Sua JUNG
1
;
Chan PARK
;
Hong So YANG
;
Hyun Pil LIM
;
Kwi Dug YUN
;
Zhai YING
;
Sang Won PARK
Author Information
1. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Republic of Korea. psw320@naver.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
3-Dimensional (3D) analysis;
Simple modified impression;
Digital impression;
Jaw;
Edentulous
- MeSH:
Calcium Sulfate;
Female;
Humans;
Jaw;
Jaw, Edentulous;
Male;
Maxilla;
Methods
- From:The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
2019;11(3):179-186
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare two novel impression methods and a conventional impression method for edentulous jaws using 3-dimensional (3D) analysis software. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five edentulous patients (four men and one woman; mean age: 62.7 years) were included. Three impression techniques were used: conventional impression method (CI; control), simple modified closed-mouth impression method with a novel tray (SI), and digital impression method using an intraoral scanner (DI). Subsequently, a gypsum model was made, scanned, and superimposed using 3D analysis software. Mean area displacement was measured using CI method to evaluate differences in the impression surfaces as compared to those values obtained using SI and DI methods. The values were confirmed at two to five areas to determine the differences. CI and SI were compared at all areas, while CI and DI were compared at the supporting areas. Kruskal-Wallis test was performed for all data. Statistical significance was considered at P value <.05. RESULTS: In the comparison of the CI and SI methods, the greatest difference was observed in the mandibular vestibule without statistical significance (P>.05); the difference was < 0.14 mm in the maxilla. The difference in the edentulous supporting areas between the CI and DI methods was not significant (P>.05). CONCLUSION: The CI, SI, and DI methods were effective in making impressions of the supporting areas in edentulous patients. The SI method showed clinically applicability.
