Conventional vs Digital Impressions for Implant-Supported Overdentures : Clinical Workflows, Advantages, and Limitations

Article Article scientifique Article Conventional vs Digital Impressions for Implant-Supported Overdentures : Clinical Workflows, Advantages, and Limitations eng 2026-02-04 author Chebib Najla 0000-0002-4094-6955 858630 CUMD - Clinique de gérodontologie et prothèse adjointe (CGPA) author Kurti Xhenis 429237 CUMD - Laboratoire odontotechnique (LABOD) author Perez Alexandre 633750 CUMD - Enseignement de chirurgie orale et implantologie (ECOIM) author Casucci Alessio 430547 CUMD - Clinique de gérodontologie et prothèse adjointe (CGPA) 10.63580/ITI.FI.45772 2014-0754 https://forum-implantologicum.iti.org/feature-article/conventional-vs-digital-impressions-for-implantsupported-overdentures-clinical-workflows-advantages-and-limitations-8901 Implant-supported overdentures remain an essential treatment option for edentulous patients, particularly when anatomical, functional, esthetic or financial considerations limit fixed implant reconstructions. Careful prosthetic planning is required to ensure stability and long-term success, considering esthetics, occlusion, vertical dimension, and restorative space. This article provides clinicians with a structured overview of workflows for implant overdentures using conventional and digital impressions, highlighting their advantages, limitations, and clinical indications. Impression strategies for different attachment systems – single retentive abutments (studs), splinted abutments with a bar, and double crowns – are discussed with an emphasis on accuracy requirements. Both conventional and digital workflows remain valid approaches. Workflow selection should be guided by case complexity, the type of attachment system, and available resources. Continued advances in CAD/CAM technology are expected to further streamline fully digital protocols for implant overdentures. Conventional impressions remain the gold standard for complex cases requiring splinted abutments or double crowns. Digital recordings offer advantages in terms of patient comfort, simplified workflow, and integration with CAD/CAM systems. A comparative summary outlines key factors influencing impression accuracy, including implant distribution, scan body design, coping splinting, material selection, tray rigidity, operator experience, and post-processing steps. A step-by-step clinical case illustrates the digital workflow for a complete maxillary implant overdenture (IOD) retained using four non-splinted single retentive abutments. Diagnostic and pre-surgical planning procedures included denture duplication with radiopaque markers, CBCT-based planning, and allowed for guided implant placement. Further steps begin with intraoral scan, progressing through framework design and digital denture fabrication, and concluding with the final prosthesis retained by four single retentive abutments and their matrices (Novaloc® – Straumann Group, Basel, Switzerland). Dewey 617.6 Dewey 617 214 Enseignement de chirurgie orale et implantologie 24R 57 Département de chirurgie 222 212 Division de gérodontologie et prothèse adjointe 24Q3 false Forum implantologicum 609f830c-56eb-4080-abb1-4e09c67ec29b Article (Published version) Restricted Manuscript.pdf 2541222 application/pdf 610ed9fe2e09f02f56861f4aaa8c2417c38988c689c7c0414518c1fb6254747f restrictedAccess Faculté de médecine / Section de médecine dentaire / Enseignement de chirurgie orale et implantologie Faculté de médecine / Section de médecine clinique / Département de chirurgie Faculté de médecine / Section de médecine dentaire / Département de réhabilitation oro-faciale / Division de gérodontologie et prothèse adjointe

Title	Published in	Access level	OA Policy	Year	Views	Downloads

Conventional vs Digital Impressions for Implant-Supported Overdentures : Clinical Workflows, Advantages, and Limitations	Forum implantologicum			2026	33	1

Archive ouverte UNIGE

Kurti, Xhenis