Dimensional Changes in Extraction Sockets: A Pilot Study Evaluating Differences between Digital and Conventional Impressions

Traditionally, soft tissue records are obtained by dental impression using impression materials; however, accurately recording the soft tissue immediately after tooth extraction is difficult. We measured the tissue changes after tooth extraction and compared two impression modalities (digital versus...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inApplied sciences Vol. 12; no. 15; p. 7662
Main Authors Baek, Min-Woo, Lim, Hyun-Chang, Noh, Kwantae, Choi, Seong-Ho, Lee, Dong-Woon
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Basel MDPI AG 01.08.2022
Subjects
alveolar bone loss
dental impression material
digital technology
Dimensional changes
gingiva
Health services
Patients
Polysiloxanes
Prostheses
Scanners
Soft tissues
Teeth
Tessellation
Tissues
tooth extraction
Germany
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Traditionally, soft tissue records are obtained by dental impression using impression materials; however, accurately recording the soft tissue immediately after tooth extraction is difficult. We measured the tissue changes after tooth extraction and compared two impression modalities (digital versus conventional) by measuring the changes at the soft tissue level. In this case, 15 patients with 17 single extraction sites were enrolled. Conventional impression (CI) using vinyl polysiloxane material and digital impression (DI) using an intraoral scanner were prepared immediately after extraction (T0) and at 2 months post-extraction (T1). Standard tessellation language files were generated for superimposition of the tissue surface. The tissue changes and discrepancies were measured on the superimposed surfaces. The differences in the changes and the discrepancy between the tissue surface impression at each time point were compared. At all measuring levels, the total tissue change was significantly different between groups DI and CI (p < 0.05). DI exhibited a more pronounced tissue surface at both time points, and the total discrepancy was statistically significantly greater at T0 than at T1 (p < 0.05). The values from DI and CI demonstrated small but significantly different for the same study material. The interpretation of such differences may depend on the clinical situation or scientific value.
ISSN:2076-3417
2076-3417
DOI:10.3390/app12157662