Dan Pãtroi¹, Georgiana Florentina Gheorghe²*, Carmen Larisa Nicolae³* and Laura Iosif⁴

¹Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Dental Medicine, “Titu Maiorescu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania
² Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania
³ Department of Oral Pathology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania
⁴ Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania

*Corresponding Author: Georgiana Florentina Gheorghe, Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania and Carmen Larisa Nicolae, Department of Oral Pathology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania

Received: March 24, 2025; Published: April 02, 2025

Abstract

Impressions are pivotal in ensuring accurate replication of the prepared tooth and surrounding tissues, which is essential for the successful fabrication of prosthetic restorations. Conventional techniques, such as one-step and two-step impressions using materials like addition silicone and polyether, remain widely used, despite advances in digital impressions. Through two clinical cases, the study evaluates the effects of material choice and technique on the quality of the fixed prosthesis. Results show that while there was no significant difference between the one-step and two-step methods, the two-step technique yielded greater precision at the preparation margin. Several key factors were identified for successful impression-taking, including proper material selection, adherence to manufacturer guidelines, effective tray use, and ensuring gingival retraction. The findings emphasize that the choice of technique and material must be tailored to the specific clinical scenario to achieve optimal prosthetic results.

Keywords: Conventional Impression; Fixed Proshodontics; Proshetic Restorations

References

1. Iosif L., et al. “AI in Prosthodontics: A Narrative Review Bridging Established Knowledge and Innovation Gaps Across Regions and Emerging Frontiers”. Prosthesis 6 (2024): 1281-1299.
2. Cheng Lei., et al. "Expert consensus on dental caries management”. International journal of oral science 14.1 (2022): 17.
3. Aslan Y U and Özkan YK. “Impression Material Selection According to the Impression Technique”. Complete Denture Prosthodontics: Planning and Decision-Making (2018): 111-132.
4. De Paris Matos T., et al. “Patient-related outcomes of conventional impression making versus intraoral scanning for prosthetic rehabilitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1 (2023): 19-27.
5. Albanchez-Gonzalez M I., et al. “Accuracy of digital dental implants impression taking with intraoral scanners compared with conventional impression techniques: A systematic review of in vitro studies”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19 (4 (2022): 2026.
6. Gupta R and Brizuela M. “Dental Impression Materials”. [Updated 2023 Mar 19]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing (2025).
7. Mahmood RN., et al. “Quality of final impressions and prescriptions for fixed prosthodontics”. International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry3 (2013): 87.
8. Chochlidakis KM., et al. “Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry2 (2016): 184-190.
9. Rau Clayton T., et al. "The quality of fixed prosthodontic impressions: An assessment of crown and bridge impressions received at commercial laboratories”. The Journal of the American Dental Association 9 (2017): 654-660.
10. Christensen G J. “The challenge to conventional impressions”. The Journal of the American Dental Association 3 (2008): 347-349.
11. D’Ambrosio F., et al. “Conventional versus digital dental impression techniques: what is the future? An umbrella review”. Prosthesis 3 (2023): 851-875.
12. Hamalian TA., et al. “Impression materials in fixed prosthodontics: influence of choice on clinical procedure”. Journal of Prosthodontics: Implant, Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry2 (2022): 153-160.
13. Heboyan A G and Muradyan R G. “Impression material selection and soft tissue management in contemporary fixed prosthodontics”. International Academy Journal Web of Scholar35 (2019): 9-15.
14. Donovan T E and Chee W W. “A review of contemporary impression materials and techniques”. Dental Clinics 2 (2004): 445-470.
15. Punj A., et al. “Dental impression materials and techniques”. Dental Clinics4 (2017): 779-796.
16. Al-Odinee N M., et al. “Evaluation of the quality of fixed prosthesis impressions in private laboratories in a sample from Yemen”. BMC Oral Health 20 (2020): 1-9.
17. Zarrintaj Payam., et al. "Impression materials for dental prosthesis”. Advanced Dental Biomaterials. Woodhead Publishing (2019): 197-215.
18. Edelhoff D., et al. “Advances in materials and concepts in fixed prosthodontics: a selection of possible treatment modalities”. British Dental Journal10 (2019): 739-748.
19. Savin Carmen., et al. "Study regarding the elastic impression biomaterials dimensional stability”. Chim (Bucharest) 70 (2019): 797-800.
20. Madhavan Sanjay. "A review on hydrocolloids-agar and alginate”. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research9 (2015): 704.
21. Türksayar Almira Ada Diken., et al. “Evaluation of the Effect of Different Abutment Materials on the Final Color of the Restoration After Aging: An In Vitro Study”. International Journal of Prosthodontics5 (2022).
22. Stappert Christian FJ., et al. "Ceramic Veneers and Partial‐Coverage Restorations”. Ronald E. Goldstein's Esthetics in Dentistry (2018): 432-497.
23. Rubel BS. “Impression materials: a comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry”. Dental Clinics of North America3 (2007): 629-642.
24. Hafezeqoran Ali., et al. "Comparing the dimensional accuracy of casts obtained from two types of silicone impression materials in different impression techniques and frequent times of cast preparation”. International Journal of Dentistry1 (2021): 9977478.
25. Waldecker Moritz., et al. "Dimensional accuracy of Novel Vinyl Polysiloxane compared with Polyether impression materials: an in Vitro Study”. Materials17 (2024): 4221.
26. Ahmed S., et al. “Digital impressions versus conventional impressions in prosthodontics: A systematic review”. Cureus1 (2024).
27. Priyanka G., et al. “Digital impressions in prosthodontics—Past, present and future trends”. IP Annals of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry2 (2020): 66-70.
28. Rippe MP., et al. “Effect of different impression methods and ceramic materials on adaptation of inlays”. Brazilian Dental Science 21 (3 (2018): 296-301.
29. Dhungana M., et al. “Dimensional accuracy of different impression materials and techniques commonly used in prosthodontics”. JNDA 16 (2016): 30-36.
30. Kinra M., et al. “Custom Impression Trays In Prosthodontics-Clinical Guidelines”. Indian Journal of Dental Sciences 4 (2012).
31. Kumar A., et al. “Anatomization of Impression Techniques in Fixed Prosthodontics-A Review”. Journal of Advanced Medical and Dental Sciences Research3 (2021): 139-147.
32. Madanshetty P., et al. “Addition silicone impressions in fixed prosthodontics: clinical standpoints”. Cureus 8 (2021).
33. Sorrentino R., et al. “Laser systems for gingival retraction in fixed prosthodontics: A narrative review”. Journal of Osseointegration 1 (2022): 1-5.
34. Madaan R., et al. “Comparative evaluation of the clinical efficacy of four different gingival retraction systems: An in vivo study”. Cureus 4 (2022).
35. Buștiuc S G., et al. “Clinical evaluation of the errors of fixed prosthodontic impressions”. Romanian Journal of Oral Rehabilitation4 (2024).
36. Al-Makramani B M. “Infection control in dental clinics: prosthodontics perspectives”. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice 9 (2023): 953-961.
37. Elsawaay S and Khamakhim E. “Assessing Clinical Communication for Fixed Prosthodontics Construction between Dental Laboratories and Dentists”. Khalij-Libya Journal of Dental and Medical Research (2023): 41-50.

Citation

Citation: Georgiana Florentina Gheorghe, Carmen Larisa Nicolae., et al. “Considerations in Conventional Impression Techniques in Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics".Acta Scientific Medical Sciences 9.5 (2025): 03-11.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2025 Georgiana Florentina Gheorghe, Carmen Larisa Nicolae., 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.