In vivo deviation of residual ridge between digital and conventional impressions in the partially edentulous maxilla: a pilot study

Purpose This in vivo study aims to investigate the deviation of the residual ridge between digital and conventional impressions in the partially edentulous maxilla. Methods Forty-four patients (22 female, 22 male; 64.8 ± 6.6 years) with partially edentulous maxillae were included in the study. Digital impressions were obtained using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3, 3Shape). Conventional impressions were taken with a selective pressure impression technique using the custom tray and a silicone rubber impression material. These impressions were poured with type 4 gypsum. Models were scanned using a desktop scanner (DS-EX Pro C, Shining 3D Dental). The dimensional differences between the digital and conventional impression scans were calculated and defined as the total deviation by the Geomagic Control X software. The vertical displacement at the incisive papilla, mesial, center, and distal points of each residual ridge were measured between the digital and conventional impression scans and defined as the deviations at Point P, Point M, Point C, and Point D, respectively. The residual ridges were divided into distal extension and non-distal extension. Results The total deviation and deviation at Point P between the two scans was 0.0 08 mm and 0.0 69 mm, respectively. The total deviation and deviation at Point P exhibit ed no significant difference among patients. For the residual ridge of non-distal extension, the deviations showed no significant difference at Point M, Point C, or Point D (0.032 mm, 0.044 mm, and 0.034 mm, respectively). For the distal extension, the deviations at Point D and Point C (0.136 mm and 0.082 mm, respectively) were significantly greater than that at Point M (0.027 mm) and significantly greater than the deviations at Point D and Point C for non-distal extension (0.034 mm and 0.044 mm, respectively). The deviations of distal extension increased with the number of missing teeth. Conclusion The location of the residual ridge had significant effect on its deviation between digital and conventional impressions. This study provides the reference value for the conversion from digital anatomic impressions to digital pressure impressions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PeerJ
Published
2026-08-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.21669
Primary Topic
Dental materials and restorations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

In vivo deviation of residual ridge between digital and conventional impressions in the partially edentulous maxilla: a pilot study

Qing Fang, Shuai Hu, Shijie Zhang, Jianxiang Tao
PeerJ
Dental materials and restorations
article

In vivo deviation of residual ridge between digital and conventional impressions in the partially edentulous maxilla: a pilot study

Qing Fang, Shuai Hu, Shijie Zhang, Jianxiang Tao
article en

Abstract

Purpose This in vivo study aims to investigate the deviation of the residual ridge between digital and conventional impressions in the partially edentulous maxilla. Methods Forty-four patients (22 female, 22 male; 64.8 ± 6.6 years) with partially edentulous maxillae were included in the study. Digital impressions were obtained using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3, 3Shape). Conventional impressions were taken with a selective pressure impression technique using the custom tray and a silicone rubber impression material. These impressions were poured with type 4 gypsum. Models were scanned using a desktop scanner (DS-EX Pro C, Shining 3D Dental). The dimensional differences between the digital and conventional impression scans were calculated and defined as the total deviation by the Geomagic Control X software. The vertical displacement at the incisive papilla, mesial, center, and distal points of each residual ridge were measured between the digital and conventional impression scans and defined as the deviations at Point P, Point M, Point C, and Point D, respectively. The residual ridges were divided into distal extension and non-distal extension. Results The total deviation and deviation at Point P between the two scans was 0.0 08 mm and 0.0 69 mm, respectively. The total deviation and deviation at Point P exhibit ed no significant difference among patients. For the residual ridge of non-distal extension, the deviations showed no significant difference at Point M, Point C, or Point D (0.032 mm, 0.044 mm, and 0.034 mm, respectively). For the distal extension, the deviations at Point D and Point C (0.136 mm and 0.082 mm, respectively) were significantly greater than that at Point M (0.027 mm) and significantly greater than the deviations at Point D and Point C for non-distal extension (0.034 mm and 0.044 mm, respectively). The deviations of distal extension increased with the number of missing teeth. Conclusion The location of the residual ridge had significant effect on its deviation between digital and conventional impressions. This study provides the reference value for the conversion from digital anatomic impressions to digital pressure impressions.

PeerJVol. 14
Tongji University (CN), Shanghai Stomatological Hospital (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Dental materials and restorations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.