journal article·2025-11-25Open access

Evaluation of the influence of gingival retraction width on the optical impression of the subgingival region using a 3D printed abutment tooth model

Takahiro NISHIYAMA, Kazumichi WAKABAYASHI, Miyu TANAKA, Shingo TAMIYA, Takashi NAKAMURA, Shoichi ISHIGAKI

Dental Materials Journal· Volume 44· Issue 6

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the conditions for the finish line position and gingival retraction width that allow for taking optical impressions using three-dimensional (3D) printed models. Taking an impression using an intraoral scanner (IOS) is widely performed in fabricating crown prostheses. Measuring the subgingival finish line using an IOS is difficult; to obtain optical impressions of the subgingival finish line, the gingival retraction has been recommended. However, no study has evaluated the amount of gingival retraction width and the depth of the finish line. In this study, the measurement limits of the subgingival finish line using an IOS and models fabricated by a 3D printer were investigated. The results of this study revealed that TRIOS3 could not measure the finish line when the gingival retraction width was <0.25 mm, and the finish line was located >0.50 mm below the gingival margin.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Dental Erosion and Treatment · Periodontal Regeneration and Treatments

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry

Department of Oral Health Sciences, Otemae College

References (10)

Show source-provided references
1. 1) Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: A systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018; 26: 101-121.
2. 2) Michelinakis G, Apostolakis D, Tsagarakis A, Kourakis G, Pavlakis E. A comparison of accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: A single-blinded in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 124: 581-588.10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.10.023 ↗
3. 3) Kihara H, Hatakeyama W, Komine F, Takafuji K, Takahashi T, Yokota J, et al. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review. J Prosthodont Res 2020; 64: 109-113.10.1016/j.jpor.2019.07.010 ↗
4. 4) Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: Evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014; 14: 10.10.1186/1472-6831-14-10 ↗
5. 5) Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review. J Prosthodont 2018; 27: 35-41.10.1111/jopr.12527 ↗
6. 6) Park GH, Son KBD, Lee KB. Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete-arch digital scan. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 121: 803-810.10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.07.014 ↗
7. 7) Abduo J, Lyons K, Swain M. Fit of zirconia fixed partial denture: A systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2010; 37: 866-876.10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02113.x ↗
8. 8) Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Thor A. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison. BMC Oral Health 2018; 18: 27.10.1186/s12903-018-0489-3 ↗
9. 9) Stein RS, Kuwata M. A dentist and a dental technologist analyze current ceramo-metal procedures. Dent Clin North Am 1977; 21: 729-749.10.1016/S0011-8532(22)00988-0 ↗
10. 10) Croll BM. Emergence profiles in natural tooth contour. Part II: clinical considerations. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 63: 374-379.10.1016/0022-3913(90)90223-Y ↗