Conventional and digital impressions for complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: time, implant quantity effect and patient satisfaction

Abstract

PURPOSE To evaluate and compare the effect of impression type (conventional vs digital) and the number of implants on the time from the impressions to the generation of working casts of mandibular implant-supported fixed complete-arch frameworks, as well as on patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS 17 participants, 3 or 4 implants, received 2 types of digital impression methods (DI) and conventional (CI). In DI, two techniques were performed: scanning with the scan bodies (SC) and scanning with a device attached to the scan bodies (SD) (BR 10 2019 026265 6). In CI, the making of a solid index (SI) and open-tray impression (OT) were used. The outcomes were used to evaluate the time and the participant satisfaction with conventional and digital impressions. The time was evaluated through the timing of the time obtained in the workflow in the conventional and digital impression. The effect of the number of implants on time was also assessed. Satisfaction was assessed through a questionnaire based on seven. The Wilcoxon test used to identify the statistical difference between the groups in terms of time. The Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the relationship between the time and the number of implants. Fisher's test was used to assess the patient satisfaction ( P < .05). RESULTS The time with DI was shorter than with CI (DI, x̃=02:58; CI, x̃=31:48) ( P < .0001). The arches rehabilitated with 3 implants required shorter digital impression time (3: x̃=05:36; 4: x̃=09:16) ( P < .0001). Regarding satisfaction, the DI was more comfortable and pain-free than the CI ( P < .005). CONCLUSION Digital impressions required shorter chair time and had higher patient acceptance than conventional impressions.

Accuracy of intraoral scan with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry compared with open tray impressions for complete‐arch implant‐supported prosthesis: A clinical study

“…As a result, the most extended chairside time was found in OI. The result was consistent with a previous study (Carneiro Pereira et al, 2022). IOS required less chair time than OI (Carneiro Pereira et al, 2022).…”

“…The result was consistent with a previous study (Carneiro Pereira et al, 2022). IOS required less chair time than OI (Carneiro Pereira et al, 2022). From the perspective of saving chairside time, IOS with prefabricated scan aids is recommended.…”

Comparison between Conventional and Digital Workflow in Implant Prosthetic Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…The difference with the previously mentioned studies could lie in the larger area of the impression, which may reduce digital impression accuracy. In a 2022 study conducted by Carneiro et al [ 35 ], 17 participants underwent the placement of 3-4 implants in order to evaluate the time-effectiveness of different impression-taking techniques: two digital methods (scan with scanbodies and scan with scanbody-associated devices) and two conventional methods (solid index or open-tray), reporting a significant reduction in impression-taking time with digital techniques ( p < 0.0001). Consistent with the previous studies, our study demonstrates a better performance of the digital impression performed by an intraoral scanner (Trios 3, 3Shape), compared to the conventional impression with silicones ( p < 0.0001).…”

Effect of a Novel ‘Scan Body’ on the In Vitro Scanning Accuracy of Full-Arch Implant Impressions

“…As a crucial step in digital workflows, digital impressions have been extensively used in implant dentistry because of their distinctive advantages over conventional impressions in terms of space savings, impression materials savings, and convenient communication. 1 , 2 For digital implant impressions by intraoral scanners, an intraoral scan body (ISB) is required to transfer the implant positions, which is closely correlated with scanning accuracy. Accuracy, which consists of trueness and precision, is an important criterion used for appraising the success of impressions.…”