For early years clinicians entering the world of dentistry, mastering the art of dental impression-taking is not merely a technical requirement, it is a cornerstone of clinical success.
Impressions serve as the blueprint for a wide range of treatments, from crowns and bridges to dentures and orthodontic appliances. Inaccurate impressions can lead to ill-fitting restorations, increased chair time, patient dissatisfaction, and costly remakes. Therefore, developing precision and confidence in impression-taking is essential for clinicians in the formative stages of their careers.
A fine art
Dental impressions are a tactile and visual representation of the patient’s oral anatomy. They must capture fine details of soft and hard tissues, including margins, occlusal surfaces, and undercuts. For early years clinicians, the challenge lies not only in selecting the appropriate material but also in executing the technique with consistency.
Errors in impression-taking are a common cause of prosthetic failure, particularly in general practice settings.[i] These errors often stem from inadequate training, poor moisture control, and improper tray selection.
Materials matter
Improving impression techniques begins with understanding the properties of the materials in use. Alginate, for example, is widely used for preliminary impressions due to its ease of manipulation and cost-effectiveness.[ii] However, its dimensional instability and susceptibility to distortion require prompt pouring and careful handling.[iii]
Elastomeric materials such as polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) and polyether offer good accuracy and tear resistance, making them ideal for impressions. Yet, their success depends heavily on proper mixing, timing, and tissue management.[iv]
Moisture management
Excessive moisture such as saliva and blood can compromise the integrity of the impression material, particularly in subgingival areas.[v] Different methods can be used to mitigate excessive oral moisture including oral evacuation systems such as saliva ejectors and high-volume evacuators (HVE).v
Absorbent materials like cotton rolls or pads can be placed under the salivary duct gland to provide a temporary solution, but perhaps the most effective method of controlling excessive moisture is a dental dam to completely isolate the treatment area.[vi]
The ability to maintain a dry field is not only a technical skill but also a marker of clinical maturity. The presence of moisture during impression-taking significantly reduces the accuracy of elastomeric materials, leading to marginal discrepancies in restorations.ix
The right choices
Tray selection is another critical factor. A tray that is too small may compress tissues and distort the impression, while an oversized tray can result in uneven material thickness and poor detail capture.[vii]
Custom trays, although more time-consuming to fabricate, offer superior control and uniformity.[viii] For early years clinicians, learning to assess arch form and select the appropriate tray is a skill that improves with experience and mentorship.
Utilising technology
Digital impression systems are becoming increasingly prevalent, offering an alternative to traditional methods. Intraoral scanners provide immediate feedback, reduce patient discomfort, and can suit clinicians in a practice that follows a more digital workflow. Some studies show that digital scanners provide a more accurate measurement than conventional impression taking methods.[ix]
However, they require a different skill set and are not universally applicable, especially in cases involving subgingival margins or extensive soft tissue manipulation.[x] For early years clinicians, exposure to both analogue and digital techniques is beneficial, allowing them to choose the most appropriate method based on clinical indications.
Chairside manners
Patient communication also plays a vital role. Anxiety and movement during computerised optical impression scans can lead to the creation of ill-fitting prosthetics.[xi] Explaining the procedure, setting expectations, and using calming techniques can enhance cooperation and reduce the likelihood of retakes.
This is particularly important in paediatric patients, where tolerance for intraoral procedures may be limited.[xii]
Level-up your practice
Continuous education is essential. Attending workshops, seeking feedback from laboratory technicians, and reviewing clinical outcomes can help clinicians refine their technique. Higher accuracy in impression-taking is dependent on competent practical abilities. Lifelong learning and professional development are vital in achieving clinical excellence.
Incorporating high-quality materials and equipment into daily practice can also make a tangible difference. For clinicians looking to improve their impression outcomes, using reliable products designed for ease and precision is a practical step forward. The KemKat Impression Compound from Kemdent, for instance, offers excellent flow and stability, making it ideal for border moulding and preliminary impressions in edentulous cases. When paired with the Kemdent Dental Water Bath, clinicians can achieve consistent softening temperatures and optimal handling characteristics, reducing variability and enhancing reproducibility.
Impression-taking is a skill that demands attention to detail, anatomical understanding, and technical finesse. For early years clinicians, investing time and effort into mastering this foundational procedure pays dividends across all areas of restorative dentistry. By combining sound technique with quality materials and ongoing education, clinicians can ensure that their impressions lead to predictable, functional, and aesthetically pleasing outcomes, setting the stage for a successful and rewarding career.
For more information about the leading solutions available from Kemdent, please visit www.kemdent.co.uk or call 01793 770 256
Author: Alistair Mayoh – Marketing Director Kemdent
[i] Gaba N, Mattoo K A, Arora P. (2014). Errors in impression making. Lap Lambert Academic Publishing. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273888744_Errors_in_impression_making
[ii] Cervino G, Fiorillo L, Herford A S, Laino L, Troiano G, Amoroso G, Crimi S, Matarese M, D’Amico C, Siniscalchi E N, Ciccie M. (2018). Alginate materials and dental impression techniques: A current state of the art and application to dental practice. National Library of Medicine. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6356954/
[iii] Vidyashree V, Venkatesh K V, Nair KC. (2008). Alginate impressions: A practical perspective. Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics. Available at: https://journals.lww.com/jcde/pages/default.aspx
[iv] Gupta R, Brizuela M. (2023). Dental impression materials. National Library of Medicine. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16336232/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK574496/
[v] Walker M P, Petrie C S, Haj-Ali R, Spencer P, Dumas C, Williams K. (2005). Moisture effect on polyether and polyvinylsiloxane dimensional accuracy and detail reproduction. National Library of Medicine. Available at:
[vi] Wang Y, Li C, Wong M C M, Zou J, Shi Z, Zhou X. (2016). Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients. Cochrane Library. Available at: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009858.pub2/full
[vii] Gupta S, Narayan A I. (2017). In vitro comparative evaluation
[viii] Chidambaranathan A S, Reddy R, Rajendran S, Balasubramaniam M K. (2016). Modified technique for making auto-polymerized polymethylmethacrylate resin custom tray. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Available at: https://jcdr.net/article_fulltext.asp?issn=0973-709x&year=2016&volume=10&issue=11&page=ZH08&issn=0973-709x&id=8936
[ix] Zarbakhsh A, Jalalian E, Samiei N, Mahgoli M H, Ghane H K ,(2021. Accuracy of digital impression taking using intraoral scanner versus the conventional technique. Frontiers in Dentistry. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9355861/
[x] Janosi K M, Cerghizan D, Martha K I, Elekes E, Sxakacs B, Elekes Z, Kovacs A, Szasz A, Muresan I, Hantoiu L G. (2023). Evaluation of intraoral full-arch scan versus conventional preliminary impression. Journal of Clinical Medicine. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/12/17/5508
[xi] Saravi B, Paffenholz C L , Hazard D, Kohal R J, Patzelt S B M. (2025). Influence of different scenarios on the accuracy of computerized optical impressions. Clinical Oral Investigations. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00784-025-06245-0
[xii] Kakkar M, Wahi A, Thakkar T, Vohra I, Shukla A K. (2016). Prevalence of dental anxiety in 10 – 14 year old children and its implications. Dental Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine. Available at: https://jdapm.org/DOIx.php?id=10.17245/jdapm.2016.16.3.199
