Title

Conventional versus digital impression accuracy in maxillary and mandibular all-on-4 prostheses: An in vitro study

Authors

Shreya Makkasare^1,*, Gaurav Tripathi¹, Juhi Tripathi², Pramod Singhraul¹, Ankit Nagpal¹ & Shubham Adhikari¹

Affiliation

¹Department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, New Horizon Dental College and Research Institute, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India; ²Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Triveni Institute of Dental Sciences, Hospital & Research Center, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India; *Corresponding Author

Email

Shreya Makkasare - E-mail: shreyamakkasare04@gmail.com; Phone: +91 7066221335
Gaurav Tripathi - E-mail: dr.gaurav.tripathi23@gmail.com; Phone: +91 8435359111
Juhi Tripathi - E-mail: drjuhitripathi29@gmail.com; Phone: +91 9893356613
Pramod Singhraul - E-mail: pramodsinghraul786@gmail.com; Phone: +91 7697765039
Ankit Nagpal - E-mail: nagpalankit234@gmail.com; Phone: +91 6262753012
Shubham Adhikari - E-mail: sadhikari8013@gmail.com; Phone: +91 9340900148

Article Type

Research Article

Date

Received August 1, 2026; Revised August 31, 2026; Accepted August 31, 2026, Published August 31, 2026

Abstract

Accurate impression making is essential for achieving passive fit and long-term success of All-on-4 implant-supported prostheses, and this study compared the accuracy of conventional and digital impression techniques for maxillary and mandibular All-on-4 restorations. Sixty impressions were allocated into four groups (n = 15 each): maxillary digital, maxillary conventional, mandibular digital, and mandibular conventional; conventional impressions were made using an open-tray splinted elastomeric technique, whereas digital impressions were obtained with the Medit i600 intraoral scanner and analyzed using Medit Design 2.1.4 software. Mean deviations ranged from −0.004 to 0.154 mm in the maxilla and from −0.069 to 0.225 mm in the mandible, with no significant difference in overall trueness between arches (p > 0.05). Digital impressions showed accuracy comparable to conventional impressions, with greater reproducibility in the maxillary arch and slightly higher variability in the mandibular arch. Thus, data shows the Medit i600 digital workflow proved to be a reliable alternative to conventional impression techniques for complete-arch All-on-4 implant-supported prostheses.

Keywords

All-on-4; digital impression; conventional impression; intraoral scanner; implant, prosthodontics

Citation

Makkasare et al. Bioinformation 22(8): 4951-4955 (2026)

Edited by

Vini Mehta

ISSN

0973-2063

Publisher

Biomedical Informatics

License

This is an Open Access article which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. This is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.