Introduction: Implantology is the fastest growing specialty in dentistry. A key point for the accurate fabrication of fixed prosthetic structures is taking an accurate impression of the prosthetic field. The implant-prosthetic restoration of the masticatory apparatus after the composition of the function and aesthetics of the dentition through digital technology is gaining wider popularity.
Aim: The purpose of this article is to address impression materials and compare the two methods of impression taking from implants—conventional and digital—and clarify their advantages and disadvantages.
Materials and Methods: After reviewing materials, studies, and publications on the subject, we tried to present and systematize the main methods and techniques for taking an impression of implants in a conventional and digital way, as well as their advantages and disadvantages. The search was conducted using various keywords and combinations: “transfer impression”, “conventional impression”, “intraoral scanner”, “CAD/CAM”, “scan body”.
Results: Forty-one original and review articles were reviewed. Impression materials, impression-taking techniques in permanent implant prosthodontics by conventional and digital methods, and types of intraoral scanning systems are discussed.
Conclusion: Taking an accurate impression is a key point in implantology. There are differences in the impression taking techniques of implants. Two main impression techniques are used, direct with an open tray and indirect with a closed tray. According to many literature sources, the open-tray impression technique is more precise and produces more accurate results, while others believe that the closed-tray technique is more accurate. More and more often, conventional impressions are being replaced by digital ones. Digital impressions entered dentistry and, in particular, implantology as an alternative to conventional ones for the restoration of small defects such as single crowns and short bridges.
Gupta R, Gupta N, Weber KK. Dental Implants. (Updated 2021 Aug 11). In: StatPearls (Internet). Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2021.
Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(2):184-90.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.017.
Pant R, Juszczyk AS, Clark RK, Radford DR. Long-term dimensional stability and reproduction of surface detail of four polyvinyl siloxane duplicating materials. J Dent. 2008;36(6):456-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.03.003.
Hamalian TA, Nasr E, Chidiac JJ. Impression materials in fixed prosthodontics: influence of choice on clinical procedure. J Prosthodont. 2011;20(2):153-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00673.x.
Boening KW, Walter MH, Schuette U. Clinical significance of surface activation of silicone impression materials. J Dent. 1998;26(5-6):447-52. doi: 10.1016/s0300-5712(97)00057-2.
Gupta R, Brizuela M. Dental Impression Materials. 2021 Sep 16. In: StatPearls (Internet). Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022.
Giordano R 2nd. Impression materials: basic properties. Gen Dent. 2000;48(5):510-2, 514, 516.
Yilmaz H, Aydin C, Gul B, Yilmaz C, Semiz M. Effect of disinfection on the dimensional stability of polyether impression materials. J Prosthodont. 2007;16(6):473-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00235.x.
Wee AG. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83(3):323-31. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(00)70136-3.
Tabesh M, Alikhasi M, Siadat H. A comparison of implant impression precision: Different materials and techniques. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018;10(2):e151-7. doi:10.4317/jced.54457.
Reddy S, Prasad K, Vakil H, Jain A, Chowdhary R. Accuracy of impressions with different impression materials in angulated implants. Niger J Clin Pract. 2013;16(3):279–84. doi: 10.4103/1119-3077.113447.
Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100(4):285-91. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60208-5.
Enkling N, Bayer S, Jöhren P, Mericske-Stern R. Vinylsiloxanether: a new impression material. Clinical study of implant impressions with vinylsiloxanether versus polyether materials. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14(1):144-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00240.x.
Conrad HJ, Pesun IJ, DeLong R, Hodges JS. Accuracy of two impression techniques with angulated implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2007;97(6):349-56. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60023-7.
Vigolo P, Fonzi F, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. An evaluation of impression techniques for multiple internal connection implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;92(5):470-6. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.08.015.
Balouch F, Jalalian E, Nikkheslat M, Ghavamian R, Toopchi Sh, Jallalian F, et al. Comparison of dimensional accuracy between open-tray and closed-tray implant impression technique in 15° angled implants. J Dent (Shiraz). 2013;14(3):96-102.
Lorenzoni M, Pertl C, Penkner K, Polansky R, Sedaj B, Wegscheider WA. Comparison of the transfer precision of three different impression materials in combination with transfer caps for the Frialit-2 system. J Oral Rehabil. 2000;27(7):629-38. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2000.00594.x.
Carr AB. Comparison of impression techniques for a five-implant mandibular model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991;6(4):448-55.
Chee W, Jivraj S. Impression techniques for implant dentistry. Br Dent J. 2006;201(7):429-32. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4814118.
Assif D, Marshak B, Schmidt A. Accuracy of implant impression techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11(2):216-22.
Brainerd S, Nayar BR. Impression techniques in implant dentistry. J Dent Med Sci. 2018;17(11):33-44.
Koch GK, Gallucci GO, Lee SJ. Accuracy in the digital workflow: From data acquisition to the digitally milled cast. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(6):749-54. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.004.
Georgiev DK. Application of temporary restorations obtained through 3D laser stereolithographic printer. PhD Thesis. Medical University of Varna;2021.
Cicciù M, Fiorillo L, D'Amico C, Gambino D, Amantia EM, Laino L, et al. 3D digital impression systems compared with traditional techniques in dentistry: a recent data systematic review. Materials (Basel). 2020;13(8):1982. doi: 10.3390/ma13081982.
Batson ER, Cooper LF, Duqum I, Mendonça G. Clinical outcomes of three different crown systems with CAD/CAM technology. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(4):770-7. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.002.
De Angelis P, Manicone PF, De Angelis S, Grippaudo C, Gasparini G, Liguori MG, et al. Patient and operator centered outcomes in implant dentistry: comparison between fully digital and conventional workflow for single crown and three-unit fixed-bridge. Materials (Basel). 2020;13(12):2781. doi: 10.3390/ma13122781.
Park JM, Kim RJ, Lee KW. Comparative reproducibility analysis of 6 intraoral scanners used on complex intracoronal preparations. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(1):113-20. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.025.
Gogushev K, Abadzhiev M, Georgieva K, Denkov I. Intraoral scanning systems based on the principle of confocal laser microscopy used in the modern prosthetic dentistry. Varna Med Forum. 2017;6(1):80-5. doi: 10.14748/vmf.v6i1.1925.
Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):149. doi:10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x
Ben-Izhack G, Shely A, Koton O, Meirowitz A, Levartovsky S, Dolev E. (In-vitro comparison between closed versus open CAD/CAM systems) Comparison between closed and open CAD/CAM systems by evaluating the marginal fit of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic crowns. Appl Sci. 2021;11(10):4534. doi: 10.3390/app11104534.
Liu PR, Essig ME. Panorama of dental CAD/CAM restorative systems. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2008;29(8):482, 484, 486-8 passim.
Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Rydén J, Thor A. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent. 2018;69:110-118. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.12.006.
Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Chuang SK, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(1):102-10.
Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B, McGlumphy EA Jr, Seidt J, Johnston WM. Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(1):96-104. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.01.003.
Yilmaz B, Abou-Ayash S. A digital intraoral implant scan technique using a combined healing abutment and scan body system. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(2):206-9. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.01.016.
Moreira AH, Rodrigues NF, Pinho AC, Fonseca JC, Vilaça JL. Accuracy Comparison of Implant Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17 Suppl 2:e751-64. doi: 10.1111/cid.12310.
Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mörmann WH, Reich S. Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview. Int J Comput Dent. 2015;18(2):101-29. English, German.
De Angelis P, Manicone PF, De Angelis S, Grippaudo C, Gasparini G, Liguori MG, et al. Patient and operator centered outcomes in implant dentistry: comparison between fully digital and conventional workflow for single crown and three-unit fixed-bridge. Materials (Basel). 2020;13(12):2781. doi: 10.3390/ma13122781.
Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(3):343-352. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.10.029.
Cicciù M, Fiorillo L, D'Amico C, Gambino D, Amantia EM, Laino L, et al. 3D digital impression systems compared with traditional techniques in dentistry: a recent data systematic review. Materials (Basel). 2020;13(8):1982. doi: 10.3390/ma13081982.
Email this article (Login required) 
