Comparative evaluation of the accuracy of dental stone casts fabricated using different technologies and impression materials: an uncontrolled clinical and laboratory study

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of studies addressing the accuracy of various impression materials and digital methods for jaw model acquisition, the comparative effectiveness of these approaches remains insufficiently investigated, underscoring the relevance of the present study.

AIM: The work aimed to comparatively assess the accuracy of dental stone jaw casts obtained by conventional methods using different impression materials and of digital models produced by intraoral scanning.

METHODS: The study included 30 patients with intact dentitions. For each patient, impressions were obtained using alginate, A-silicone, and C-silicone materials, and intraoral scanning was performed. Dental stone casts were fabricated from the analog impressions: solid casts from alginate impressions and casts with removable dies from silicone impressions using the Giroform system (Amann Girrbach AG, Austria) and a conventional technique. All physical models and digital scans were converted to 3D STL format. Comparative analysis of the accuracy of anatomic detail reproduction (teeth 1.6 and 2.1; ISO/FDI designation) was performed using Geomagic Control X (3D Systems, USA) by superimposition and deviation assessment.

RESULTS: The highest accuracy (minimal deviation from the digital reference) was observed for solid casts fabricated from alginate impressions: deviation of 0.0031 ± 0.0005 mm for tooth 1.6 and 0.0029 ± 0.0004 mm for tooth 2.1. Among casts with removable dies, those fabricated using the Giroform system demonstrated the best results: deviation of 0.0037 ± 0.0003 mm for tooth 1.6 and 0.0036 ± 0.0003 mm for tooth 2.1. The lowest accuracy was recorded for casts with removable dies fabricated by the conventional method from C-silicone impressions, with maximum deviations of 0.0066 ± 0.0007 mm and 0.0065 ± 0.0007 mm, respectively. All intergroup differences were significant (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: Digital models obtained by intraoral scanning and solid casts fabricated from alginate impressions demonstrate high and comparable accuracy. For fabrication of casts with removable dies, use of the Giroform system substantially improves accuracy compared with the conventional technique. These findings are clinically relevant for selecting the optimal method for producing working models in prosthodontics.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Sergey I. Kalinovskiy

Ryazan State Medical University named after Academician I.P. Pavlov

Email: kalinovskiysi@yahoo.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6222-3053
SPIN-code: 2506-0080

MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine)

Russian Federation, Ryazan

Andrei V. Sevbitov

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)

Email: avsevbitov@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8247-3586
SPIN-code: 8143-7686

MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Professor

Russian Federation, Moscow

Andrey E. Shmoilov

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)

Email: shmoilovae@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0004-6618-2190
Russian Federation, Moscow

Aleksandr A. Oleynikov

Ryazan State Medical University named after Academician I.P. Pavlov

Author for correspondence.
Email: bandprod@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2245-1051
SPIN-code: 5579-5202

MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine)

Russian Federation, Ryazan

Efim R. Resh

Ryazan State Medical University named after Academician I.P. Pavlov

Email: r.efim1910@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0000-4779-5865
SPIN-code: 2325-4212
Russian Federation, Ryazan

Anna R. Ogareva

YUMI Dentistry Center

Email: anna3223@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0007-3935-9888
Russian Federation, Voskresensk

References

  1. Vokulova YuA, Zhulev EN. Results of the study of digital images of the bases of complete removable prostheses made using 3D printing and traditional technologies. Clinical Dentistry (Russia). 2021;(1):131–135. doi: 10.37988/1811-153X-2021-1-131 EDN: JZKKQO
  2. Yachmeneva LA, Krivtsova AS. Comparative characteristics of efficiency of silicone educational materials. Innova. 2018;(1):15–17. doi: 10.21626/innova/2018.1/03 EDN: YWFUZF
  3. Poloneychik NM, Petrazhitskaya GV. Methods of making plaster models: a teaching aid. Minsk: BGMU; 2020. 28 p. (In Russ.) ISBN: 978-985-21-0520-0
  4. Nabiullina GI, Fazylova DI, Zenitova LA. Impression materials for dentistry (review article). Vestnik tehnologicheskogo universiteta. 2017;20(14):46–50. (In Russ.) EDN: ZDWPJF
  5. Kiyashchenko AI, Mutigullina AI, Mkrtichyan AS, et al. Digital technologies in dentistry. Advantages of using intraoral scanning compared to analog impressions. Mezhdisciplinarnyj studencheskij nauchnyj vestnik. 2022;(2):1–6. (In Russ.) Режим доступа: https://stud-messenger.ru/journal/issue-23/article-333/
  6. Cicciù M, Fiorillo L, D’Amico C, et al. 3D digital impression systems compared with traditional techniques in dentistry: a recent data systematic review. Materials (Basel). 2020;13(8):1982. doi: 10.3390/ma13081982
  7. Kahya Karaca Ş, Akca K. Comparison of conventional and digital impression approaches for edentulous maxilla: clinical study. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24:1378. doi: 10.1186/S12903-024-05151-3 EDN: HKLQKV
  8. Grigoryan SS, Sitnikova EN. Comparative assessment of the quality of impressions in prosthetics on implants. Mezhdisciplinarnyj studencheskij nauchnyj vestnik. 2019;2(5):9. (In Russ.) Режим доступа: https://eduherald.ru/ru/article/view?id = 19746&utm_source = yandex.ru&utm_medium = organic&utm_campaign = yandex.ru&utm_referrer = yandex.ru
  9. Saakyan MYu, Alekseeva NA, Yakunina AV, Baryshev II. The comparison of intraoral scanning techniques. Medical Almanac. 2023;(4):97–104. EDN: OBALAE
  10. Yanishen IV, German SA. Evaluation of physical and mechanical properties of A-silicone elastic structural materials: comparative analysis. MCNP “Novaja nauka”; 2021. P. 112–118. (In Russ.) ISBN: 978-5-00174-287-4
  11. Cherkasov SM. The analysis of prevalence of dental systems, forming the demand for dental services. Fundamental’nye issledovanija. 2014;(2):186–189. EDN: RZQTWZ
  12. Belyaev MV. The possibilities of portable 3d triangulation scanners in tracological research. Vestnik jekonomicheskoj bezopasnosti. 2022;(3):41–45. doi: 10.24412/2414-3995-2022-3-41-45 EDN: AUYMJU
  13. Borodina ID, Grigoryants LS, Gadzhiev MA, et al. Comparative evaluation of the accuracy of the dental arch display using modern intraoral three-dimensional scanners. Russian Journal of Dentistry. 2022;26(4):347–352. doi: 10.18821/1728-2802-2020-24-6-347-35
  14. Bordin DS, Masharova AA, Drozdov VN, et al. Diagnostic value of the alginate test in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology Journal. 2010;(12):102–107. doi: 10.31146/1682-8658-ecg-164-4-13-19
  15. Belyankin IA, Afanasyeva MM, Aslanyan MA. Comparative characteristics of modern alginate and C-silicone impression materials. In: Bulletin of medical Internet conferences. 2020;(10)5:171. (In Russ.) Режим доступа: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sravnitelnaya-harakteristika-sovremennyh-alginatnyh-i-s-silikonovyh-ottisknyh-mass/viewer
  16. Vahobov A. 3D digital smile design with a mobile phone and intraoral optical scanner. Teorija i praktika sovremennoj nauki. 2021;(2):25–31. EDN: FSQDOL
  17. Nagibina LA, Chausova ZV, Matveev SV, Romashova DD. Research of the expansion error at the initial stages of orthopedic treatment. Medical & Pharmaceutical Journal Pulse. 2019;21(8):53–58. doi: 10.26787/nydha-2686-6838-2019-21-8-53-58 EDN: SVILEM

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
2. Fig. 1. Superimposition of digital STL models onto the reference model using Geomagic Control X software (3D Systems, USA): a, deviation values (mm) for a solid cast fabricated from an alginate impression (upper model), illustrating the magnitude of deviation from the reference; b, deviation values (mm) for a cast with removable dies fabricated from a C-silicone impression using the conventional technique (lower model), illustrating the magnitude of deviation from the reference.

Download (232KB)
3. Fig. 2. Analysis of deviation magnitude in the posterior region according to impression type and model fabrication method (mean values in millimeters).

Download (130KB)
4. Fig. 3. Analysis of deviation magnitude in the anterior region according to impression type and model fabrication method (mean values in millimeters).

Download (131KB)

Copyright (c) 2026 Eco-Vector

License URL: https://eco-vector.com/for_authors.php#07

СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 86295 от 11.12.2023 г
СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ЭЛ № ФС 77 - 80635 от 15.03.2021 г
.