J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci.  2024 Aug;40(3):159-168. 10.14368/jdras.2024.40.3.159.

Combined use of direct and indirect digital impression in temporary denture fabrication

• Park JS
• Lee CH
• Lee KB
• Lee DH
• Yu HJ
• Kim SY

• KMID: 2562760
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2024.40.3.159

Abstract

Through the use of intraoral scanners, it is possible to obtain intraoral scan impressions and produce prostheses. This approach is also being attempted not only in dentate patients but also in edentulous patients. However, obtaining scans of edentulous areas can be more challenging than scanning dental areas, and there may be limitations, especially in capturing the details of the mucosal tissues. On the other hand, when obtaining impressions with intraoral scanners, simultaneous recording of the occlusal relationship of the maxilla and mandible can reduce the number of patient visits and expedite the restoration process. In this case, we aimed to combine the advantages of direct intraoral scanning and indirect digital impressions obtained after traditional impression-taking by merging two types of scan files. Consequently, in patients with partially edentulous arches, we sought to provide effective in-terim prostheses through direct and indirect digital model impressions and report our findings accordingly.

Keyword

intraoral scanner; interocclusal record; temporary denture; digital dentistry; digital impression

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Comparison of the prosthetic manufacturing process between the traditional impression method and the intraoral scan method for partially edentulous patients.

• 

  Fig. 2 Initial panoramic radiograph.

• 

  Fig. 3 Intraoral photographs after teeth extraction. (A) Frontal view with maxillary and mandibular incisors maintaining stable jaw relation, (B) Maxillary occlusal view with extraction socket of left maxillary second molar, (C) Mandibular occlusal view with extraction sites showing asymmetrical resorption of alveolar bone.

• 

  Fig. 4 Study casts. (A) Occlusal view of maxilla, (B) Occlusal view of the mandible.

• 

  Fig. 5 Scan procedure. (A) Preparation for subsequent scans of casts after an intraoral scan, (B) Scanning of maxillary cast, (C) Scanning of mandibular cast, (D) Definite maxillary scan image, (E) Definite mandibular scan image, (F) Right view after jaw relation registration, (G) Left view after jaw relation registration.

• 

  Fig. 6 Discrepancies (Arrows) in vestibule morphology between study model and intraoral scan data. (A) Maxilla, (B) Sublingual vestibule of mandible.

• 

  Fig. 7 Denture design on the CAD software. (A) Denture base of maxilla, (B) Maxillary teeth, (C) Denture base combined with maxillary teeth, (D) Denture base of mandible, (E) Mandibular teeth, (F) Denture base combined with mandibular teeth, (G) CAD design of dentures on the virtual casts.

• 

  Fig. 8 Temporary denture and delivery. (A) Maxillary occlusal view, (B) Mandibular occlusal view, (C) Maxillary inner surface of denture, (D) Mandibular inner surface of denture, (E) Frontal view with dentures, (F) Open state with dentures.

• 

  Fig. 9 Initial panoramic radiograph.

• 

  Fig. 10 Acquired scan file. (A) Maxillary scan view with complemented left posterior buccal vestibular impression by a gypsum model. (B) Mandibular scan view with complemented posterior edentulous ridge by a gypsum model. (C) Right occlusion, (D) Frontal occlusion, (E) Left occlusion.

• 

  Fig. 11 Printed dentures try-in and adjustment in the 3D printed model. (A) Maxilla, (B) Mandible, (C) Right occlusion, (D) Frontal occlusion, (E) Left occlusion.

• 

  Fig. 12 Delivery of temporary dentures. (A) Frontal view, (B) Open state, (D) Smile view, (D) Frontal view showing intraoral state with dentures.

Reference

References

1. Abad-Coronel C, Valdiviezo OP, Naranjo OB. 2019; Intraoral scanning devices applied in fixed prosthodontics. Acta Sci Dent Sci. 3:44–51.

2. Sawase T, Kuroshima S. 2020; The current clinical relevancy of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry. Dent Mater J. 39:57–61. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2019-285. PMID: 31723067.

3. Alghazzawi TF. 2016; Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: Options for practical implementation. J Prosthodont Res. 60:72–84. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2016.01.003. PMID: 26935333.

4. Tabesh M, Nejatidanesh F, Savabi G, Davoudi A, Savabi O, Mirmohammadi H. 2021; Marginal adaptation of zirconia complete-coverage fixed dental restorations made from digital scans or conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 125:603–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.01.035. PMID: 32284188.

5. Skinner EW, Chung P. 1951; The effect of surface contact in the retention of a denture. J Prosthet Dent. 1:229–35. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(51)90055-8. PMID: 14832852.

6. D'Ambrosio F, Giordano F, Sangiovanni G, Di Palo MP, Amato M. 2023; Conventional versus Digital Dental Impression Techniques: What Is the Future? An Umbrella Review. Prosthesis. 5:851–75. DOI: 10.3390/prosthesis5030060.

7. Al Hamad KQ, Al-Kaff FT. 2023; Trueness of intraoral scanning of edentulous arches: A comparative clinical study. J Prosthodont. 32:26–31. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13597. PMID: 35997079.

8. Patzelt SB, Vonau S, Stampf S, Att W. 2013; Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws. J Am Dent Assoc. 144:914–20. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0209. PMID: 23904578.

9. Chebib N, Imamura Y, El Osta N, inivasan M Sr, Müller F, Maniewicz S. 2024; Fit and retention of complete denture bases: Part II - conventional impressions versus digital scans: A clinical controlled crossover study. J Prosthet Dent. 131:618–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.07.004. PMID: 36055812.

10. Fang Y, Fang JH, Jeong SM, Choi BH. 2019; A Technique for Digital Impression and Bite Registration for a Single Edentulous Arch. J Prosthodont. 28:e519–23. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12786. PMID: 29522269.

11. Goldstein GR. 1992; An alternative immediate complete denture impression technique. J Prosthet Dent. 67:892–3. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90611-D. PMID: 1403888.

12. Abad-Coronel C, Atria PJ, Romero Muñoz C, Conejo J, Córdova NM, Pendola M, Blatz M. 2022; Analysis of the mesh resolution of an .STL exported from an intraoral scanner file. J Esthet Restor Dent. 34:816–25. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12889. PMID: 35247025.

13. Vecsei B, Joós-Kovács G, Borbély J, Hermann P. 2017; Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems - An in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res. 61:177–84. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2016.07.001. PMID: 27461088.

14. Lai JY, Ueng WD, Yao CY. 1999; Registration and data merging for multiple sets of scan data. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 15:54–63. DOI: 10.1007/s001700050039.

15. Ren S, Morton D, Lin WS. 2020; Accuracy of virtual interocclusal records for partially edentulous patients. J Prosthet Dent. 123:860–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.08.013. PMID: 31672422.

16. Edher F, Hannam AG, Tobias DL, Wyatt CCL. 2018; The accuracy of virtual interocclusal registration during intraoral scanning. J Prosthet Dent. 120:904–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.024. PMID: 29961618.

17. Cha C, Pyo SW, Chang JS, Kim S. 2023; Digital mounting accuracy of 2 intraoral scanners with a single anterior or bilateral posterior occlusal scan: A three-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 130:612.e1–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.07.028. PMID: 37633731.

18. Yee SHX, Esguerra RJ, Chew AAQ, Wong KM, Tan KBC. 2018; Three-Dimensional Static Articulation Accuracy of Virtual Models-Part II: Effect of Model Scanner-CAD Systems and Articulation Method. J Prosthodont. 27:137–44. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12725. PMID: 29210502.

19. Ries JM, Grünler C, Wichmann M, Matta RE. 2022; Three-dimensional analysis of the accuracy of conventional and completely digital interocclusal registration methods. J Prosthet Dent. 128:994–1000. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.005. PMID: 33888327.