Clinical Oral Investigations

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02995-w

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Digital impressions in dentistry—accuracy of impression

digitalisation by desktop scanners
Cornelius Runkel 1 & Jan-Frederik Güth 2 & Kurt Erdelt 2 & Christine Keul 2

Received: 12 November 2018 / Accepted: 28 June 2019

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Objectives To test if the partially digital workflow by digitalisation of the impression reveals a comparable accuracy as the
indirect digitalisation of the gypsum cast for 4-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs).
Materials and methods A titanium model with a tapered full veneer preparation of a molar and premolar was used as analysis
model. To receive a virtual three-dimensional reference dataset (REF), it was digitised by industrial computed tomography. Three
impression materials were used with individual impression trays (N = 36, n/material = 12): (1) PE (Impregum Penta), (2) PVS-I
(Imprint 4 Penta: Super Quick Heavy plus Super Quick Light), and (3) PVS-D (Dimension Penta: H Quick plus L). For partially
digital workflow (group IMP), two desktop scanners were used: (1) D810 (3Shape D810) and (2) ZZ (Zirkonzahn S600ARTI).
For indirect digitalisation (group CAST), gypsum master casts were manufactured and digitalised using the same desktop
scanners. Virtual datasets were superimposed by best fit algorithm, and accuracy was analysed by calculating the Euclidean
distances (ED) to the REF (Geomagic Qualify). Statistic was determined (Kruskal-Wallis H test, Mann-Whitney U post hoc
analysis, two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, p < 0.05).
Results ZZ showed for positive deviations superior accuracy for IMP than for CAST. PE and PVS-I showed superior accuracy
than PVS-D. D810 showed partially significant better performance with PVS-I and PVS-D than ZZ.
Conclusions The partially digital workflow by digitalisation of the impression can be used for clinical indications of small-span
fixed dental prostheses. However, for this indication, the impression material and the desktop scanner are more decisive for the
accuracy of virtual model datasets.
Clinical relevance Despite the rapid advancement of the computer-aided technology for dental therapy purposes, the implemen-
tation of this technique is not as fast as the technical development. In order to combine the well-established procedure to use
elastomeric materials for a conventional impression and to avoid the drawbacks of casting it by gypsum, the digitalisation of the
impression itself by a desktop scanner may be a logical procedure as an access point to the digital workflow. However, there is
only limited information about the accuracy of this partially digital workflow by the digitalisation of modern impression materials
in comparison to the well-known process of indirect digitalisation of gypsum casts.

Keywords Digital impression . Impression material . Impression scan . Cast scan . Accuracy

Introduction impression taking. However, even after the preparation of a tooth

Despite the fact that intraoral scanners are being used more in
dental offices, conventional impressions are still the most used
technique and they are still considered to be the gold standard in
* Christine Keul
christine.keul@med.uni-muenchen.de
1
Wetter (Ruhr), Germany
2 computer-aided manufacturing (CAM); this is because
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital of the LMU
Munich, Goethestraße 70, 80336 Munich, Germany
and impression taking, it is still a multistep process to the final
restoration, crowded with plenty of possible mistakes, like the
impression itself, casting, and indirect digitalisation [1]. Hereby,
the choice of impression material, as well as the applied impres-
sion technique, the disinfection protocol, the transport, the reset
time, the type of gypsum, and even the time between the single
steps, influences the accuracy [2–5]. Therefore, optical intraoral
digitisation seems to be the logical way to access the following
digital workflow of computer-aided design (CAD) and
workflows with less intermediate steps allow for the prevention

of failures and for more control. This theory has been proven, as
several studies have shown a high accuracy for direct
digitalisation and the respective workflows of single crowns up
to one quadrant [6–8]. For the digital workflow for full-arch
restorations, there is not enough scientific clarification.
On the other hand, there are several reasons why the con-
ventional workflow including impression taking, gypsum
pouring, and indirect digitalisation in the dental laboratory is
still used in most dental offices. First of all, there are situations
where an intraoral scanning device cannot be used due to
clinical circumstances, like highly reflecting surfaces, very
deep subgingival preparations with complicated tissue man-
agement, moisture, and bleeding. Probably, the most impor-
tant reason is the high costs for the equipment, the implemen-
tation of the new procedures into the daily routines, and the
reorganisation of the synchronisation between the dental of-
fice and dental laboratory. Due to these reasons, the use of
innovative intraoral scanning devices is mostly preferred by
the younger generation [9]. In order to combine the well-
established procedure of using elastomeric materials for a con-
ventional impression and to avoid the drawbacks of casting it
using gypsum, the digitalisation of the impression itself by a
desktop scanner may be a logical procedure.
Prior studies have determined the accuracy of desktop
scanners on reference structures without the intermediate steps
of impression taking or gypsum pouring in which acceptable
values for clinical use were stated for the digitalisation
[10–12]. However, for the digitalisation of the impression,
deep undercuts and small diameters limit the accessibility of
optical scanning devices to parts of the impression due to
shadowing, especially when the scanning device is based on
triangulation technology.
Currently, there is a lack of studies comparing the accuracy
of the partially digital workflow by the digitalisation of mod-
ern impression materials using different laboratory scanning
devices. Also, to the best of the author’s knowledge, there are
no studies comparing the accuracy of the resulting datasets
when the impression itself is scanned versus the well-known
procedure of gypsum cast digitalisation.
So, the aim of this in vitro study focuses on the following
question: does it makes sense to scan the impression itself
instead of the poured gypsum cast? The null hypothesis of
the study was that no differences regarding the accuracy of
the obtained datasets can be found between the model and
impression scans.
Materials and methods
Test model and reference dataset
A titanium test model of a premolar (FDI 14) and a molar (FDI
17) with chamfer preparations representing a basis for a four-
Clin Oral Invest
unit FDP (fixed dental prosthesis) was used for the current
study (Fig. 1). To produce a virtual three-dimensional refer-
ence dataset (REF), it was digitised using an industrial com-
puted tomography (Perkin Elmer PE XRD 1620; Feinfocus
FXE 225.99 at EZRT, Fürth, Germany). According to the
manufacturer, the accuracy of the reference dataset was
3 μm. The exact fabrication process, the elicitation of the
reference dataset, and the post-processing of the data to pro-
duce a highly accurate reference dataset (marching cubes
method) have been previously described in depth [6].
Impression taking
Three different materials for precision impressions (one
polyether: Impregum; two polyvinyl siloxane materials:
Imprint 4 and Dimension) were used for the analysis. All
material information and abbreviations are given in Table 1.
Twelve impressions of the titanium testing model were
taken with each impression material by the same experienced
examiner, following the manufacturer’s recommendations re-
garding setting time and processing, using customised impres-
sion trays (Palatray XL). According to the clinical application,
the impressions were disinfected for 2 min (ORBI-sept
Abformdesinfektion).
For the polyether material, Impregum (PE), the impression
trays were applied with 3M ESPE Polyether Tray Adhesive
and twelve impressions were taken with a mono-phase tech-
nique. For the polyvinyl siloxane materials, the impression
trays were applied with 3M ESPE VPS Tray Adhesive. For
Imprint (PVS-I) and Dimension (PVS-D), twelve impressions
were taken with a double-mix technique (Fig. 1).
Indirect digitalisation of impressions (group IMP)
Eight hours after taking the impressions, a thin layer of anti-
glare scan spray was applied and the impressions were
Fig. 1 From left to right: The titanium analysis model, the impressions in
individual trays (Impregum Penta, Imprint 4 Penta Super Quick Heavy/
Imprint 4 Penta Super Quick Light, Dimension Penta H Quick/
Dimension Penta L), and the sectioned gypsum cast
Clin Oral Invest

Table 1 Materials used in the present study

Product Lot no. Manufacturer Abbreviation

Impregum Penta Base 512888 3M ESPE Dental Products, Seefeld, Germany PE

Catalyst 512314
Imprint 4 Penta Super Quick Heavy 555586 3M ESPE Dental Products, Seefeld, Germany PVS-I
Imprint 4 Super Quick Light 556704 3M ESPE Dental Products, Seefeld, Germany
Dimension Penta H Quick 628275 3M ESPE Dental Products, Seefeld, Germany PVS-D
Dimension Penta L 623829 3M ESPE Dental Products, Seefeld, Germany
Palatray XL 132651 Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany –
ORBI-sept Abformdesinfektion A0984 Orbis Dental Handelsgesellschaft GmbH, Münster, Germany –
3M ESPE Polyether Tray Adhesive 528962 3M ESPE Dental Products, Seefeld, Germany –
3M ESPE VPS Tray Adhesive 575501 3M ESPE Dental Products, Seefeld, Germany –
Fino Scan Stone 313096 DTShop GmbH, Bad Bocklet, Germany –
suppen-sockler 4-55262 Picodent Dental-Produktions- und Vertriebs-GmbH, –
Wipperfürth, Germany

scanned using two laboratory desktop scanning systems
3Shape D810 and Zirkonzahn S600 ARTI. Exact device de-
scriptions are also listed in Table 2.
Manufacturing of the gypsum casts and indirect
digitalisation (group CAST)
Twenty-four hours after taking the impression, the previously
scanned impressions were poured using a scannable type IV
gypsum (Fino Scan Stone) and the sockets were manufactured
for each model after 12 h (Suppen-Sockler). After a further
24 h, the casts were sectioned into three parts to receive master
models (Fig. 1). All master models were also scanned with the
same two scanners.
Alignment of datasets and analysis
of the three-dimensional divergences
All scans (N = 144; n = 12/group) were exported as STL
datasets, which were imported into the inspection software
Qualify (version 02.01.2012; Geomagic, Morrisville, NC,
USA) for further editing and analysis. The test datasets were
roughly adjusted by the examiner with the reference dataset
for removing the artefacts and the areas without interest (1 mm
below the preparation margin). After that, a highly precise
adjustment of the test datasets was executed using a best fit
superimposition with the reference dataset (Fig. 2).
For each single measurement point, the corresponding
three-dimensional Euclidean distance (ED) was computed
by the inspection software (Fig. 2). In relation to the reference
dataset, those distances could take positive or negative values.
In accordance with ISO 5725-1 [13], the trueness was de-
fined as the closeness of agreement between the experimental
dataset and the reference dataset, which was determined by
measuring the ED between the reference dataset and the test
dataset. The precision was characterised by the scatter range
of all measured ED values and is a sign of the reproducibility
of the measuring method in question.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated for each group and pa-
rameter (positive deviation and negative deviation). Data was
analysed for the normal distribution using the Kolmogorov-
Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests.
To evaluate the statistically significant differences for the true-
ness in the positive, negative, and absolute value ranges, a
Kruskal-Wallis H test (p < 0.05) followed by a Mann-Whitney
U post hoc analysis with a significance correction (material:
p < 0.017, scanning object: p < 0.05, scanner: p < 0.05) was
performed.
To evaluate the statistically significant differences for the
precision in the positive and negative value ranges, a two-
sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p < 0.05) was performed.

Table 2 Desktop scanner used in the present study with software version

Desktop scanner Software version Manufacturer Abbreviation

3Shape D810 Dental System 2014-1 × 64 (build: 2.9.9.5–16.09.2014) 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark D810
Zirkonzahn S600ARTI Zirkonzahn–Archiv version 2012.06, database engine Zirkonzahn GmbH, Gais, Italy ZZ
build 4539 (2012-06-05)
 Clin Oral Invest

Fig. 2 Three-dimensional analysis of datasets from (a) digitalisation of field of interest (blue); 3, alignment with the reference dataset (grey); 4,
impression and (b) digitalisation of sectioned gypsum cast. 1, imported three-dimensional analysis and colour-coded depiction of deviations.
dataset after digitalisation; 2, reduction of the dataset after reduction to the

Results confidence interval for each parameter, are given in

Table 3. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk
The mean values and their standard deviation, as well tests revealed that 6 of the 24 test groups had no nor-
as the m inimum, m edian, maximum, and 95% mal distribution for the deviation parameters. Figure 3
Table 3 Values of Euclidean distances

Positive deviation (μm) Negative deviation (μm)

Clin Oral Invest

D810 ZZ D810 ZZ

Min Med Max MW (SD) 95% CI Min Med Max MW (SD) 95% CI Min Med Max MW (SD) 95% CI Min Med Max MW (SD) 95% CI

PE IMP
12.0 19.5 32.0 20.9 (5.7) 17.2/24.6 11.0 17.0 24.0 17.4 (4.0) 14.8/20.0 13.0 16.0 24.0 17.1 (4.0) 14.6/19.6 15.0 *21.5 44.0 25.0 (9.7) 18.9/31.1
a/A/1 a/A/1 b/A/1 ab/A/1
CAST 13.0 *17.0 40.0 19.7 (8.0) 14.5/24.8 14.0 21.5 35.0 22.8 (6.4) 18.7/27.0 9.0 17.5 31.0 18.1 (6.9) 13.8/22.4 12.0 16.5 30.0 18.6 (5.5) 15.2/22.0
a/A/1 a/B/1 a/A/1 a/A/1
PVS-I IMP 12.0 17.0 32.0 18.9 (5.8) 15.2/22.7 19.0 21.5 27.0 22.2 (2.7) 20.4/23.9 12.0 *12.5 22.0 14.4 (3.3) 12.4/16.5 16.0 20.0 23.0 19.8 (2.1) 18.5/21.1
a/A/1 b/A/1 a/B/1 a/A/2
CAST 12.0 17.0 32.0 18.4 (6.2) 14.4/22.4 20.0 *27.0 42.0 28.6 (6.8) 24.2/33.0 9.0 12.0 18.0 12.8 (3.3) 10.7/14.8 11.0 16.5 25.0 17.8 (3.9) 15.4/20.3
a/A/1 ab/B/2 a/A/1 a/A/1
PVS-D IMP 12.0 22.5 55.0 27.0 (12.4) 19.1/34.9 14.0 28.5 63.0 32.3 (16.5) 21.8/42.9 11.0 *24.0 74.0 32.8 (22.2) 18.8/46.9 23.0 *40.5 96.0 50.3 (25.4) 34.2/66.4
a/A/1 ab/A/1 b/A/1 b/A/2
CAST 12.0 30.5 52.0 29.3 (11.4) 22.1/36.6 20.0 31.0 54.0 31.8 (10.0) 25.4/38.2 14.0 32.0 73.0 35.9 (18.6) 24.1/47.7 18.0 36.0 63.0 37.0 (15.3) 27.3/46.7
a/A/1 b/A/1 b/B/1 a/A/2

Min minimum, Med median, Max maximum, MW mean values, SD standard deviation, 95% CI 95% confidence intervals for positive and negative deviations
Significant differences are indicated as follows:
Lower case letters: differences between impression material within one single scanning object and one desktop scanner
Capital letters: differences between scanning object within one single impression material and desktop scanner
Numbers: differences between desktop scanner within one single impression material and scanning object
* not normally distributed

Fig. 3 Boxplots of the positive and negative deviations for all impression materials, scanning objects, and desktop scanners
gives the boxplots of the positive and negative devia-
tions for all groups.
Determination of ‘trueness’
Regarding the differences between impression scans and
cast scans, the following differences could be found:
For the D810 scanner and PVS-D, the digitalisation of
the IMP resulted in a significantly higher trueness than
the CAST within negative deviations, while for impres-
sion material PVS-I, digitalisation of the CAST showed
a significantly higher trueness than IMP. For the ZZ
scanner and PE plus PVS-I impression materials, the
digitalisation of the IMP resulted in a significantly
higher trueness than the digitalisation of the CAST
within positive deviations.
Comparing the impression materials under each other,
the following differences could be found: For the D810-
IMP, the significantly highest trueness within the
Clin Oral Invest
negative deviations was found for PVS-I, while within
positive deviations, no significant differences occurred.
For the D810-CAST, the material PVS-D showed the
significantly lowest trueness within the negative devia-
tions, while for positive deviations, no significant differ-
ences occurred. For the ZZ-IMP, the significantly
highest trueness was found for the material PVS-I with-
in the negative deviations and for the material PE with-
in the positive deviations. For the ZZ-CAST, no signif-
icant differences were found within the negative devia-
tions, while within the positive deviations, the material
PE showed the significantly highest trueness.
Regarding the scanning system, the following differences
could be found: For the PVS-I impression material, D810
resulted in a significantly higher trueness than ZZ within the
negative deviations for IMP and within the positive deviations
for CAST. For the PVS-D impression material, D810 resulted
in a significantly higher trueness than ZZ within the negative
deviations for the groups IMP and CAST.
Clin Oral Invest
Determination of the ‘precision’
In view of the differences between the impression scans and
the cast scans, the following significant differences could be
found within the same impression material and scanning sys-
tem: For the D810 scanner, no significant differences in view
of the precision were found between the scanning objects. For
the ZZ scanner and the PVS-D impression material, the
digitalisation of the IMP resulted within the positive and neg-
ative deviations in a significantly higher precision than the
digitalisation of the CAST.
Regarding the impression material, the following signifi-
cant differences could be found within the same scanning
object and scanning system: For the D810-IMP, no differences
were found between the impression materials. For the D810-
CAST, the impression material PVS-I showed a significantly
higher trueness than PVS-D within the negative deviations,
while within the positive deviations, PE showed a significant-
ly higher trueness than PVS-D. For the ZZ-IMP, PE showed
the highest precision within the positive deviations, while
PVS-D showed the lowest precision within the negative devi-
ations. For the ZZ-CAST, the impression material PVS-D
showed the significantly lowest precision within the negative
deviations, while no significant differences were found within
the positive deviations.
In view of the scanning system, the following significant
differences could be found: For the PVS-I impression material
within the negative and positive deviations, the digitalisation
of the IMP scanning system, ZZ, resulted in a significantly
higher precision than D810, while for the digitalisation of the
CAST scanning system, D810 resulted in a significantly better
precision than ZZ. For PE and PVS-D, no differences between
the desktop scanners were found.
Discussion
Considering the results, the null hypothesis of the study must
be rejected because the scanning object (impression or cast)
significantly influenced the accuracy of the resulting datasets
in terms of trueness and precision. Furthermore, it was shown
that the impression material, as well as the desktop scanning
system, showed an influence on the trueness and precision of
the datasets.
The analysing method used to measure the accuracy, ap-
plying the parameters of trueness and precision, that was cho-
sen in the presented study is in accordance with ISO 5725-1
[13]. Hereby, the trueness is defined as the closeness of agree-
ment between the experimental dataset and the reference
dataset; it was determined by measuring the ED between the
reference dataset and the test dataset. The analysing software
(Geomagic Qualify) applies a ‘best fit alignment’ for the su-
perimposition of the experimental and the reference dataset, as
described in multiple previous studies [6, 8, 14–17]. The low-
er the EDs between the surface points, the higher the trueness
of the working process. The precision of a working process
can be interpreted as the reproducibility and can be deter-
mined by the scatter range of all the measured values. In con-
trast to previous study analyses, the positive and negative
deviations to the reference were examined, in particular, for
the determination of trueness and precision. This procedure
was used against the background that trueness and precision
are dependent of each other.
In view of the scanning objects, significant differences could
be found dependent on the impression material as well as the
desktop scanner. For the D810 scanner and the use of polyvinyl
siloxane materials differences in the negative value range could
be found with better trueness for scanning the cast with PVS-I
and better trueness for scanning the impression with PVS-D. For
the Zirkonzahn scanner and the use of PE and PVS-I differences
in the positive value range could be found with better trueness for
scanning the impression. This may lead to the assumption that
for low span restorations, with all abutment teeth reduced for a
full covered restoration, the Zirkonzahn scanner may lead in the
positive value range to more accurate values for the digitalisation
of the impression than for the digitalisation of the cast.
In 2016, Matta et al. found that scanning the impression
itself can show a better performance than scanning the cast in
a laboratory setup with implants using an industrial non-contact
scanner [18]. Furthermore, in multiple study designs, Jeon et al.
examined impression scanning used in scanning systems with
different light colours and different abutment types; they
showed good results for repeatability in general, slightly better
results for scanners using blue light, and difficulties scanning a
premolar with a long and narrow shape [19–21].
In the context of the higher negative deviations for the
digitalisation of the impression for single groups, the applied
scan spray could be a possible cause of error. The negative
mould of the impression itself makes it especially difficult to
apply the scan spray with exact layer thicknesses for all im-
pressions. Furthermore, manufacturers have designed new im-
pression materials designed for scanning without prior powder
application (for example, Flexitime Fast&Scan). Those mate-
rials were not available to the user in the process of planning
and conducting this study. Therefore, impression materials
which may be digitised without using a scan spray should be
investigated in a further study.
In view of the impression material, PE and PVS-I resulted
in better trueness and precision for most groups than PVS-D.
However, all materials are within an acceptable range for clin-
ical use with the analysed desktop scanners. The fact that for
most of the tested groups, no differences could be found be-
tween PE and PVS-I stops a general recommendation for one
particular material class. Furthermore, for clinical use, the ma-
terial characteristics of PVS or polyether in terms of the hy-
drophilicity and reset time or the process of taking the

impression (mono-phase vs. double-mix technique) has to be
considered as well. Further analysis of the chemical wettabil-
ity characteristics could reveal further statements about the
stated hydrophilic features of PVS.
In view of the different scanning devices, D810 showed a
significantly better performance with PVS-I and PVS-D than
the Zirkonzahn desktop scanner, while in combination with
PE, the scanning devices performed similarly without any
significant differences. When looking at the desktop scanners,
though the hypothesis was rejected, the difference in the re-
sults amongst each of the scanners was not distinct.
Nevertheless, the question may arise why the 3Shape
D810 showed a better performance only in combination with
PVS materials. If the basic red laser technique of the D810 is
in general superior to the strip light technique of the
Zirkonzahn, all the values for all the impression materials
would show more accurate results in combination with the
D810. So, a possible correlation between the colours may
affect the results. PVS-I is a colour mixture of pink and yel-
low, whereas pink is a component present in all the other
materials. Hence, yellow is unique for the tested PVS-I in this
study and might be reflected differently by the red laser of the
D810 than by the strip light of the Zirkonzahn. However, no
information about this fact was found in the actual literature.
Therefore, this conjecture has to be discussed in further
analyses.
Camardella et al. already proved that scans of full-arch
impressions with PVS in combination with the 3Shape R700
scanning device show high accuracy and reliability [17].
Shimizu et al. [12] used the 3Shape D810 in an in vitro study
to digitise a reference model without the intermediate steps of
impression taking or gypsum cast manufacturing. So, only the
accuracy of the digitalisation process itself was investigated.
In contrast, the present approach focuses on the accuracy
achieved in the complete workflow of the data acquisition of
the partly digital workflow and of the indirect digitalisation.
These results offer possibilities for the dental technician who
has to decide whether a physical model is necessary for the
manufacturing process; as for a monolithic work, a model is
not absolutely necessary in opposite to ceramic fusions, the
veneer technique or facings. Renouncing a physical model
could save precious time in the manufacturing process on
the one hand and reduce material costs on the other hand.
Nevertheless, the digitalisation of the impression of a full arch
or the presence of natural tooth morphologies may have a
negative influence on the accuracy of the virtual dataset. For
this morphological analysis setup, further studies are needed
to investigate the trueness and precision for the digitalisation
of the impression without cast manufacturing.
Within the limitations of this study, this approach can be
used for laboratory desktop scanners and common modern
impression materials to digitise a single quadrant. Previous
studies have already researched impression scans of different
Clin Oral Invest
types of prepared teeth where comparable results to this study
were achieved for canines, premolars, and molars separately
[19, 22]. In order to achieve a reliable conclusion, clinical
parameters in view of the preparation geometry were set to
be as equal as possible for every impression. Nevertheless,
moisture and movement, like in real patients, were not simu-
lated by this laboratory test design and are therefore a limita-
tion factor of the present study. The proteinaceous surfaces of
the oral environment obtain a lower surface free energy than
metal dies [2] and therefore a different wettability by the im-
pression material.
The design of the model may also be seen as a limitation of
the present study, as it does not contain a naturally shaped
tooth in addition to both prepared abutment teeth. Thus, only
parallel surfaces without undercuts have to be digitised with
the desktop scanners. Undercuts are always a problem for the
optical digitalisation process, as there is often shadowing on
the surface despite the rotation of the model or the digitising
unit. Therefore, a further model has to be established with
additional unprepared teeth, like most cases in routine clinical
practice.
Conclusion
In limitations of this study, the partially digital workflow by
the digitalisation of the impression without the additional in-
termediate step of pouring a gypsum cast seems to be a rea-
sonable approach to create a virtual model dataset of small
spans up to one quadrant for the subsequent CAD/CAM pro-
cess. However, in view of this restricted indication, the im-
pression material and the desktop scanner are more decisive
for a high accuracy of virtual model datasets.
Acknowledgements The authors thank the company 3M ESPE Dental
Products for providing the impression materials.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Ethical approval This article does not contain any studies with human
participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
References
1. Christensen GJ (2008) The challenge to conventional impressions.
J Am Dent Assoc 139(3):347–349
2. Basapogu S, Pilla A, Pathipaka S (2016) Dimensional accuracy of
hydrophilic and hydrophobic VPS impression materials using dif-
ferent impression techniques - an Invitro study. J Clin Diagn Res
Clin Oral Invest
10(2):ZC56–ZC59. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/17323.
7259
3. Schaefer O, Schmidt M, Goebel R, Kuepper H (2012) Qualitative
and quantitative three-dimensional accuracy of a single tooth cap-
tured by elastomeric impression materials: an in vitro study. J
Prosthet Dent 108(3):165–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-
3913(12)60141-3
4. Kulkarni PR, Kulkarni RS, Shah RJ, Chhajlani R, Saklecha B,
Maru K (2017) A comparative evaluation of accuracy of the dies
affected by tray type, material viscosity, and pouring sequence of
dual and single arch impressions- an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res
11(4):Zc128–Zzc35. https://doi.org/10.7860/jcdr/2017/24292.9756
5. Naumovski B, Kapushevska B (2017) Dimensional stability and
accuracy of silicone - based impression materials using different
impression techniques - a literature review. Pril (Makedon Akad
Nauk Umet Odd Med Nauki) 38(2):131–138. https://doi.org/10.
1515/prilozi-2017-0031
6. Keul C, Stawarczyk B, Erdelt KJ, Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Guth JF
(2014) Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after
chairside and labside digitalization–a laboratory study. Dent Mater
30(4):400–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.01.006
7. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A (2016) In vivo precision
of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental
impressions. Clin Oral Investig 20(7):1495–1504. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00784-015-1641-y
8. Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D (2013)
Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data
capturing. Clin Oral Investig 17(4):1201–1208. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00784-012-0795-0
9. Joda T, Bragger U (2016) Time-efficiency analysis of the treatment
with monolithic implant crowns in a digital workflow: a random-
ized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 27(11):1401–1406.
https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12753
10. Mandelli F, Gherlone E, Gastaldi G, Ferrari M (2017) Evaluation of
the accuracy of extraoral laboratory scanners with a single-tooth
abutment model: a 3D analysis. J Prosthodont Res 61(4):363–
370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2016.09.002
11. Su TS, Sun J (2015) Comparison of repeatability between intraoral
digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: an in-vitro study. J
Prosthodont Res 59(4):236–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.
2015.06.002
12. Shimizu S, Shinya A, Kuroda S, Gomi H (2017) The accuracy of
the CAD system using intraoral and extraoral scanners for design-
ing of fixed dental prostheses. Dent Mater J 36(4):402–407. https://
doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2016-326
13. DIN ISO 5725-1: Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measure-
ment methods and results - Part 1: General principles and
definitions.
14. Guth JF, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C
(2017) Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect
digitalization. Clin Oral Investig 21(5):1445–1455. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00784-016-1902-4
15. Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Accuracy of complete-arch dental impres-
sions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet
Dent 109(2):121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)
60028-1
16. Lee JJ, Jeong ID, Park JY, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim WC (2017)
Accuracy of single-abutment digital cast obtained using intraoral
and cast scanners. J Prosthet Dent 117(2):253–259. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.021
17. Camardella LT, Alencar DS, Breuning H, de Vasconcellos Vilella O
(2016) Effect of polyvinylsiloxane material and impression handling
on the accuracy of digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop
149(5):634–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.10.027
18. Matta RE, Adler W, Wichmann M, Heckmann SM (2017)
Accuracy of impression scanning compared with stone casts of
implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent 117(4):507–512. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.026
19. Jeon JH, Kim HY, Kim JH, Kim WC (2014) Accuracy of 3D white
light scanning of abutment teeth impressions: evaluation of trueness
and precision. J Adv Prosthodont 6(6):468–473. https://doi.org/10.
4047/jap.2014.6.6.468
20. Jeon JH, Kim DY, Lee JJ, Kim JH, Kim WC (2016) Repeatability
and reproducibility of individual abutment impression, assessed
with a blue light scanner. J Adv Prosthodont 8(3):214–218.
https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.3.214
21. Jeon JH, Lee KT, Kim HY, Kim JH, Kim WC (2013) White light
scanner-based repeatability of 3-dimensional digitizing of silicon
rubber abutment teeth impressions. J Adv Prosthodont 5(4):452–
456. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2013.5.4.452
22. Persson AS, Oden A, Andersson M, Sandborgh-Englund G (2009)
Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: virtual three-
dimensional analysis of exactness. Dent Mater 25(7):929–936.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.01.100
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.