• Irina GRĂDINARU “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • Cristina Gena DASCĂLU “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • Magda-Ecaterina ANTOHE “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi


Intraoral digital impression is a revolutionary breakthrough and an important step forward in dentistry due to its accuracy in achieving high-precision prosthetic work on natural teeth or dental implants. The aim of this study is to analyze the established differences between the digital impression and the classic impression in relation to the specific features of the clinical case. Material and methods: The study included 58 patients diagnosed with partially reduced edentulousness or with extensive destruction of the dental units who received fixed therapy anchored in a non-metallic registry of prosthetic restorations represented by ceramic crowns on zirconium support. Results: Optical impression in conventional prosthetics plays a very important role as it is the first step in the complete digital line of prosthetic construction. The accuracy and precision of the impressions are key points in the marginal fit of the prosthetic work and therefore in the success of the prosthetic treatment. Conclusions: Dental digital impression is a non-invasive, simple, practical, accurate and patient-friendly procedure that eliminates many of the inconveniences of conventional impressions.

Author Biographies

Irina GRĂDINARU, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Faculty of Dental Medicine
Department of Implantology, Removable Prostheses, Dental Prostheses Technology

Cristina Gena DASCĂLU, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Preventive Medicine and Interdisciplinarity

Magda-Ecaterina ANTOHE, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Faculty of Dental Medicine
Department of Implantology, Removable Prostheses, Dental Prostheses Technology


1. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014; 14: 10 / doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-10.
2. Hong-Seok P, Chintal S. Development of High Speed and High Accuracy 3D Dental Intra Oral Scanner. Procedia Engineering 2015; 100: 1174-1181.
3. 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.
4. Aswani K, Wankhade S, Khalikar A, Deogade S. Accuracy of an intraoral digital impression: A review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2020; 20(1): 27-37.
5. Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review of Influencing Factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018; 26(3): 101-121.
6. Kim RJY, Park JM, Shim JS. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 120(6): 895-903.
7. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin. Oral Implants Res 2013; 24(1): 111-115.
8. Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin. Oral Implants Res 2015; 26(6): 715-719.
9. Carvalho TF, Lima JFM, Melo de Matos JD. Evaluation of the Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Methods of Obtaining Dental Impressions. Int. J. Odontostomat 2018; 12(4): 368-375.
10. Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review. J Prosthodont 2018; 27(1): 35-41.
11. Logozzo S, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G, Kilpelä A, Mäkynen A. Recent advances in dental optics – Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Optics and Lasers in Engineering 2014; 54: 203-221.
12. Shembesh M, Ali A, Finkelman M, Weber H-P, Zandparsa R. An In Vitro Comparison of the Marginal Adaptation Accuracy of CAD/CAM Restorations Using Different Impression Systems. J Prosthodont 2017; 26(7): 581-586.
13. Cappare P, Sannino G, Minoli M, Montemezzi P, Ferrini F. Conventional versus Digital Impressions for Full Arch Screw-Retained Maxillary Rehabilitations: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 16(5): 829.
14. Cicciù M, Fiorillo L, D’Amico C, et al. 3D Digital Impression Systems Compared with Traditional Techniques in Dentistry: A Recent Data Systematic Review. Materials 2020; 13(8): 1982.
15. Ruthwal Y, Parmar S, Abrol S, Nagpal A, Gupta R. Digital Impressions: A New Era in Prosthodontics. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences 2017; 16(6-II): 82-84.
16. Zenati L, Boukais H. Conventional Impression vs Optical Impression: The Battle has already Begun. Periodon Prosthodon 2016; 2: 3 / doi: 10.21767/2471-3082.100025.
17. Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK, Collin‐Bagewitz I, Kisch J. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique Compared to Conventional Impression Technique. A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Prosthodont 2016; 25(4): 282-287.
18. Iliescu AA, Perlea P, Iliescu MG, Gorea V, Nicolau G. Practica stomatologica in era digitalizarii: Quo vadimus? Medicina stomatologica 2017; 3(44): 11-15.
19. Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, et al. Intraoral Scanner Technologies: A Review to Make a Successful Impression. J Healthc Eng 2017; 2017: 8427595.