Kaotar Eddaouri¹*, Yasmine Mahboub¹, Imane Ait Said¹, Fatima Zahra Echchekkri¹, Zineb El Jalil² and Houda Moussaoui³

¹Faculty of Dental Medicine of Casablanca, Hassan II University of Casablanca, Casablanca, Morocco
²Department of, Faculty of Dental Medicine of Casablanca, Hassan II University of Casablanca, Casablanca, Morocco
³Department of Fixed Prosthesis, Faculty of Dental Medicine of Casablanca, Hassan II University of Casablanca, Casablanca, Morocco

*Corresponding Author: Kaotar Eddaouri, Faculty of Dental Medicine of Casablanca, Hassan II University of Casablanca, Casablanca, Morocco.

Received: April 23, 2026; Published: May 30, 2026

Introduction: Fixed prosthodontics requires an accurate impression of the teeth and the area to be restored to enable the laboratory to fabricate the desired restoration without errors. This study evaluated the quality of impressions received by private laboratories for the fabrication of fixed prostheses by describing the frequency of clinically detectable errors and analyzing them.

Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 16 dental laboratories in Casablanca, assessing the quality of a sample of 410 fixed prosthesis impressions.

Results: The main findings were as follows:

• Five impressions were rejected by the technicians.
• Elastomers were used in 97.8% of cases.
• Dentists used the wash technique in 52.3% of cases and the double-mix technique in 45.9% of cases.
• The most frequently detected errors included: bubbles at the cervical margin (91.3%), bubbles on the preparation (45.2%), insufficient coverage of the entire arch by the impression material (42.5%), use of non-rigid impression trays (52.3%), bubbles in the canal (18.3%) and traces of blood on the impression (15.8%).

Conclusion: These results highlight a high frequency of detectable errors in fixed prosthesis impressions received by dental laboratories, which can lead to poorly fitting restorations for patients. It is therefore recommended that dentists conduct a more critical self-assessment of their impressions before sending them to the laboratory and enhance their skills and knowledge of impression materials and techniques.

Keywords: Fixed Prosthodontics; Impression Accuracy; Cervical Margins; Elastomeric Materials; Tray Rigidity; Quality Assessment

References

1. Nachum S., et al. “A clinical evaluation of fixed partial denture impressions”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry2 (2005): 112-117.
2. Clayton T., et al. “The quality of fixed prosthodontic impressions: An assessment of crown and bridge impressions received at commercial laboratories”. Journal of the American Dental Association9 (2017): 654-660.
3. Al-Odinee NM., et al. “Evaluation of the quality of fixed prosthesis impressions in private laboratories in a sample from Yemen”. BMC Oral Health1 (2020): 304.
4. Ahmad S., et al. “The quality of working impressions for the fabrication of fixed prosthodontics prostheses (crown and bridgework)”. European Journal of General Dentistry2 (2014): 100-104.
5. Gikunda MK., et al. “Factors that influence the quality of final impressions for fixed dental prostheses in Nairobi, Kenya”. International Journal of Dental Materials3 (2023): 69-77.
6. Madanshetty P., et al. “Addition Silicone Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: Clinical Standpoints”. Cureus 8 (2023): e44014.
7. Gordon GE., et al. “The effect of tray selection on the accuracy of elastomeric impression materials”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry1 (1990): 12-15.
8. Ceyhan JA., et al. “The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry2 (2003): 143-149.
9. Rubel BS. “Impression Materials: A Comparative Review of Impression Materials Most Commonly Used in Restorative Dentistry”. Dental Clinics of North America 51 (2007): 629–
10. Donovan TE and Chee WWL. “A review of contemporary impression materials and techniques”. Dental Clinics of North America 4 (2004): 445-470.
11. Thongthammachat S., et al. “Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: influence of tray material, impression material, and time”. Journal of Prosthodontics2 (2002): 98-108.
12. CF Andreescu. “Assessment of Impression Techniques for Crowns and Bridges”. Annals of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry1 (2015): 5-8.
13. McCracken MS., et al. “Laboratory technician assessment of the quality of single-unit crown preparations and impressions as predictors of the clinical acceptability of crowns as determined by the treating dentist: Findings from the national dental practice-based research network”. Journal of Prosthodontics 29 (2020): 114–
14. Hatzikyriakos A., et al. “Considerations for services from dental technicians in fabrication of fixedprostheses: A survey of commercial dental laboratories in Thessaloniki, Greece”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry5 (2006): 362-366.
15. Almortadi N and Chadwick RG. “Disinfection of dental impressions – compliance to accepted standards”. British Dental Journal12 (2010): 607-611.

Citation

Citation: Kaotar Eddaouri., et al. “Quality of Fixed Prosthodontic Impressions Received by Dental Technicians in Casablanca: An Epidemiological Study". Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 10.6 (2026): 23-28.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2026 Kaotar Eddaouri., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.