Author: Alyn Morgan
With dental restorations, precision is paramount for a perfect fit. That means the quality of the impression is crucial.[i] Despite advances in digital technology, cases are still vulnerable to one hugely disruptive risk: deformed, broken or lost impressions that have to be sent in the post from dental practice to the laboratory.
A deformed or broken impression can affect cost, time, and productivity. A lost impression generally means the patient has to return to the dental practice, causing additional inconvenience and loss of reputation. All these issues compromise the speed and quality that practices require to function as well as the continuity of quality patient care within the practice.[ii]
Fragile from the offset
Whether silicone, polyether, alginate, or something else, each dental impression material varies in features.[iii] Alginate is widely used due to the balance between cost-effectiveness, patient comfort, and efficiency, but falls short in its susceptibility to breakage, like a number of other materials.[iv] If the impression is taken well, these materials are accurate when it is taken, but can be easily compromised by pressure during postage or temperature fluctuations.[v] Additionally, the regular transportation of impressions places them at even greater risk of getting lost.[vi]
Alginate, by nature, can shrink within 30 minutes due to water loss through evaporation, decreasing the dimensional accuracy of impressions.[vii] When it becomes distorted or the tray is broken, the impression is completely unusable.[viii] And, just like a lost impression, that means starting again with the patient.
The cost of lost time
The fast-paced dental environment relies on efficiency and precision to maintain a consistent workflow. Labs are almost always under work and time pressures, meaning one broken or missing impression can disrupt their schedules, pushing back work, and requiring rescheduling. Lost time is lost business.
Without any record – digital or physical – there is no possibility of replicating the impression, meaning an entirely new appointment with the patient is required to start again. Extending the process by weeks, these delays are hugely detrimental to productivity, and cost dentists and their technician counterparts time that cannot be regained. The compound delays reduce overall efficiency, potentially affecting other workflows.[ix]
Financial consequences
In addition to lost time, broken or missing impressions lead to financial consequences through wasted materials, and additional chair time.[x] The requirement to retake an impression costs more than that of the additional material, but also costs associated with any other equipment use, and staff time too.
The staff re-allocation costs are a huge hidden expense with missing or broken dental impressions. Dentists, technicians, and practice support staff have insufficient time and opportunity to amend the issues, update records, rebook cases, and of course, retake the impressions.
Digital impression workflow
Digitising the transfer process to the lab enables clinicians to overcome the challenges traditionally associated with the analogue process. [xi] In particular, a digital impression provides a readily available reference for professionals to recover or recreate the original template – not an option when analogue impressions are lost or broken.[xii]
Digitising an impression is an undeniably faster process, and completely removes the risks of breaking or losing the impression, while immediately scanning chairside in the dental practice also significantly reduces the risk of deformation of the impression.[xiii] The process allows for the impressions to be sent directly to the lab, with records of the impression kept digitally for future reference. That also means the patient doesn’t need to return to the practice for amendments or replacements.
A smarter future
The Cubit360TM from MimetrikTM is a portable, ultra-fast method of scanning impressions chairside in the dental practice. Offering real-time scanning with no mechanical delays, and minimal space and training requirements, the digital scan can be received immediately at the laboratory, ready for the instant creation of models.
Efficient and intuitive, Mimetrik’s innovative scanner speeds up the entire case – removing days in the clinical pathway. The remarkable design provides six degrees of freedom – the only scanner in the world with this capability.
When impressions are lost, deformed or broken, the effects it has on the workflow, lab, patient, and dentist are much greater than merely a nuisance – costing time, money, efficiency, and reputation. By investing in the right tools, these risks can be avoided entirely, streamlining focus, progress, and results.
For more information about Mimetrik, please visit https://mimetrik.tech/
[i] https://dental-design.marketing, D.D. and The Probe (2025) Impressions: The Foundation of Dental Workflows, The Probe. Available at: https://the-probe.co.uk/blog/2025/06/impressions-the-foundation-of-dental-workflows (Accessed: 08 August 2025).
[ii] Wong, D. (2024) Digital vs. Physical Impressions in Dentistry: A Comparative Analysis, Omegaden Laboratory. Available at: https://www.omegaden.com/post/digital-vs-physical-impressions-in-dentistry-a-comparative-analysis? (Accessed: 08 August 2025).
[iii] Gupta R, Brizuela M. Dental Impression Materials. [Updated 2023 Mar 19]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK574496/
[iv] Nandini, V. V., Venkatesh, K. V., & Nair, K. C. (2008). Alginate impressions: A practical perspective. Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD, 11(1), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.43416
[v] Kambhampati, S., Subhash, V., Vijay, C., & Das, A. (2014). Effect of temperature changes on the dimensional stability of elastomeric impression materials. Journal of international oral health : JIOH, 6(1), 12–19.
[vi] Kulkarni, M. M., & Thombare, R. U. (2015). Dimensional Changes of Alginate Dental Impression Materials-An Invitro Study. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 9(8), ZC98–ZC102. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2015/13627.6407
[vii] Walker, M. P., Burckhard, J., Mitts, D. A., & Williams, K. B. (2010). Dimensional change over time of extended-storage alginate impression materials. The Angle orthodontist, 80(6), 1110–1115. https://doi.org/10.2319/031510-150.1
[viii] Kulkarni, M. M., & Thombare, R. U. (2015). Dimensional Changes of Alginate Dental Impression Materials-An Invitro Study. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 9(8), ZC98–ZC102. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2015/13627.6407
[ix] Weiss, D. and Stecher, H.-J. (2020) Help me, help you: The pursuit of a strong dental practice/lab relationship, 3M Dental Blog. Available at: https://dentalblog.3m.com/dental/pursuit-strong-dental-practice-lab-relationship/ (Accessed: 08 August 2025).
[x] Marsico, M. (2012) The remake debate, Glidewell. Available at: https://glidewelldental.com/education/chairside-magazine/volume-7-issue-1/lab-perspectives-the-remake-debate (Accessed: 08 August 2025).
[xi] Ahmed, S., Hawsah, A., Rustom, R., Alamri, A., Althomairy, S., Alenezi, M., Shaker, S., Alrawsaa, F., Althumairy, A., & Alteraigi, A. (2024). Digital Impressions Versus Conventional Impressions in Prosthodontics: A Systematic Review. Cureus, 16(1), e51537. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.51537
[xii] Patel, T., Nathwani, N., Fine, P., & Leung, A. (2022). A scoping review of marginal and internal fit accuracy of lithium disilicate restorations. Dentistry Journal, 10(12), 236.
[xiii] Marques, S., Ribeiro, P., Falcão, C., Lemos, B. F., Ríos-Carrasco, B., Ríos-Santos, J. V., & Herrero-Climent, M. (2021). Digital Impressions in Implant Dentistry: A Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031020
