LAUSR

Impression materials are used to record and reproduce the exact morphology of the patient’s oral cavity. The dimensional stability of a material is its ability to maintain the accuracy of recording the details of the oral cavity for a longer period of time, including the time during imprinting and immediately after. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of three different impression materials commonly used in the dental practice with the aid of an extra-oral three-dimensional (3D) scanner using an in vitro analysis. A typodont tooth model of the maxillary dental arch and mandibular dental arch, containing 16 permanent teeth, was used for evaluation. With the aid of three different impression materials, this model was imprinted fifteen times, resulting in fifteen different plaster models. A capsule extra-oral scanner device was used to digitalize the models and the same device was later used to align, compare, and measure scanned model surfaces. After performing the Kruskal–Wallis test for each measurement category (model), only two out of the fifteen measurements showed statistically significant differences between the material groups: vestibular-oral and mesial-distal width. Post hoc analysis showed that the alginate model (mean range = 29.13) had significantly higher bias scores than the addition silicone model (mean range = 16.75) (z = 2.501, p = 0.037). The difference between the average values of the model bias made from condensation-based silicone and addition-based silicone was initially significant, but after applying the Bonferroni correction for further comparisons, this relationship did not remain significant (z = 2.197, p = 0.084). Addition-based silicone models had the highest accuracy in terms of fidelity, followed by condensation-based silicones, and then by alginate models. Silicone-based impression materials improved over time, being highly used in all areas of dentistry. Alginate impressions had the lowest pattern of accuracy among those studied.