Conventional Vs Digital Impressions: Acceptability, Treatment Comfort and Stress Among Young Orthodontic Patients

Mangano, Alessandro; Beretta, Matteo; Luongo, Giuseppe; Mangano, Carlo; Mangano, Francesco

doi:10.2174/1874210601812010118

Cited by 65 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, it can be difficult for the clinician, especially in the case of technically complex impressions (for example the fabrication of a long-span implant-supported reconstruction) [12,14]. The optical impression with Intraoral Scanners (IOS) solves all these problems: it is well-tolerated by the patient, since it does not require the use of conventional materials, and is technically easier for the clinician [16,17,18,19,20,21,22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Implant Casts Generated with Conventional and Digital Impressions—An In Vitro Study

Ribeiro

Herrero-Climent

Díaz-Castro

et al. 2018

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital dental impressions with the accuracy of impressions obtained via conventional techniques. Methods: Two different master models were created, one with parallel implants (model 1) and the other with non-parallel implants (model 2). These reference master models included 4 Klockner KL RP implants (Klockner Implant System SA, Barcelona, Spain), which were juxta-placed and equidistant in the intermentoneal region. In model 1 the implants were placed parallel to each other, whereas in model 2 the implants were placed such that there was a divergence angle of 15° between the more distal implants, and a convergence angle of 15° between the two central implants. A total of four types of impressions were obtained from model 1 (four groups, n = 10 each), including closed tray impressions with replacement abutments; open tray impression groups for dragging copings, without splinting; open tray impressions for ferrules; and impressions obtained using the 3MTM True Definition Scanner system. For model 2 three groups were created (three groups, n = 10 each), including closed tray impressions with replacement abutments; open tray impression for dragging copings, without splinting; and impressions obtained using the 3MTM True Definition Scanner system. The master models and the models obtained using conventional methods were digitalized in order to compare them via an extraoral high-resolution scanner (Imetric IScan D104i, Porretruy, Switzerland). The STL (Stereo Lithography (format for transferring 3 dimensional shape information)) digital values were loaded into reverse-engineering software and superimposed with their respective STL master models in order to evaluate deviations in three dimensions. We then analyzed the squares of the deviations in the three axes and evaluated the median and the sum of the deviation square. Statistical analysis was performed using the IBM Corp. Released 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. The normality of the distributions was analyzed according to a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The median comparison was performed using the differences between the medians, analyzed using non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests with a significance level of p < 0.05. Results: For model 1, the deviations of the digital impressions were smaller than those associated with the conventional techniques. The sum value in group D was 1,068,292, which was significantly lower than those of groups A, B, and C, which were shown to be 2,114,342, 2,165,491, and 1,265,918, respectively. This improvement was not observed when using model 2, however, where the conventional techniques yielded similar results. Group F simultaneously presented the lowest total square sum of the three deviations (1,257,835), indicating a significantly higher accuracy for this group in model 2, while the sum values were 1,660,975 and 1,489,328 for groups E and G, respectively. Conclusion: Digital impressions of full-arch models were abl...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Implant Casts Generated with Conventional and Digital Impressions—An In Vitro Study

Ribeiro

Herrero-Climent

Díaz-Castro

et al. 2018

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fourteen studies were considered for inclusion following the search and data extraction. Detailed search results are presented in the PRISMA Flow diagram (Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The key characteristics of included studies are presented in Table 1. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Risk of Bias assessment of randomized controlled trials revealed a high risk of included studies across all domains ( Fig. 2).…”

Section: Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Results from this review indicate that most patients preferred the use of scanners compared to conventional impression technique. Patients identified specific factors such as gag reflex, queasiness, breathing difficulty, uncomfortable feeling, chairside time, anxiety perception and time perception, and reported their choice on the overall preference . These factors are claimed to be the advantages of the digital impression technique over conventional .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the included, reviewed studies, the discomfort due to powder was most commonly reported by patients that rejected the scanners . Reflective surfaces such as enamel or polished restorations or any shiny surface, appear to disrupt the capture and matching of point of interest, due to over exposure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Patient preference and operating time for digital versus conventional impressions: a network meta‐analysis

Sivaramakrishnan

Alsobaiei

Sridharan

2019

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Digital impression techniques have seen many advancements, with new hardware and software being developed each year. The technical advantages of these systems are real‐time visualization, evaluation and archive, segmental capture, ease of recapture if necessary, economical in terms of no use of impression material or trays or disinfection, easy file transfer and communication with the laboratory. However patient satisfaction is one major factor that might influence the choice of impression technique. The aim of this network meta‐analysis was to identify statistically the evidence on overall patient preferences relative to digital versus conventional impression techniques, in addition to the time taken in making these impressions. Methodology Randomized or prospective clinical studies were identified based on the inclusion criteria in PUBMED, DARE and COCHRANE databases; subsequently pertinent data were extracted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle‐Ottawa scale. Heterogeneity amongst the studies in direct comparison was assessed by Chi‐square and I2 tests using the Inverse variance heterogeneity model. Direct comparison estimates were derived by pooling the data from studies that compared the same intervention. Indirect comparison pooled estimates were derived by using the data amongst the studies, through a common comparator, using MetaXL software. Mean differences and Odds ratio at 95% confidence interval were used as the effect estimates, while inconsistencies were evaluated by H‐statistics. GRADE working group approach was used to assess the quality of available evidence. Results Fourteen studies were included. Results from 11 studies on 471 patients (236‐Digital; 235‐conventional) were pooled for patient preference with 95% confidence interval. The Forest plot showed a pooled estimate of 31.23 [5.95, 163.87], showing a statistically significant number of patients favouring digital impressions. Results from 11 studies reported the time taken in 589 patients (278‐digital; 311 conventional). The pooled estimate (2.72 [0.08, 5.32]) (95% confidence interval) showed a statistically significant increase in the time required to make digital impressions. The overall time taken in minutes for the interventions in the digital group in decreasing order were: LAVA Cos (8.14[3.64,12,26] (statistically significant); I tero (4.11[‐1.02,9.24]; CEREC (0.34[‐4.14,4.82]). Conclusion There was an overall preference for digital impressions, although the time required is longer. The factors related to the digital system, the operator and the patient were studied, with recommendations forming a basis for possible hardware and software upgrades of the digital systems that can produce significant improvement in the acceptance rate for both the patient and the clinician.

show abstract

A comparison study: The use of digital and conventional impression techniques in dental hygiene education

Naderi,

Patel,

Thompson

2024

Journal of Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose/objectivesThe study aimed to assess the applicability of digital intraoral scanning in dental hygiene education and compare the quality, efficiency, and ease of use to conventional impression techniques.MethodsTwenty‐eight first‐year dental hygiene students (DH1) at UTHealth Houston School of Dentistry (UTSD) participated in this 2022 study. Each student participated in two 4‐h lab sessions. Students took traditional alginate impressions and digital intraoral scans using Planmeca Romexis on standardized teeth during the first and second sessions. Both techniques were assessed by faculty for quality and efficiency using a standardized rubric. Participants completed a post‐survey providing insight into their perceptions of both techniques and ease of use.ResultsThe study had 100% participation in the lab sessions and survey responses (N = 28). The results showed digital scanning produced a statistically higher quality product than conventional alginate impressions (p = 0.023). The study found no statistical difference in the efficiency between the two methods. The majority of students (82%) agreed that digital intraoral scanning was easy to use (p = 0.001), and 89% agreed they would use digital intraoral scanning in clinical courses to help with patient care (p = 0.03).ConclusionIn this study, dental hygiene students with limited clinical experience learned new technology and used it to produce quality impressions compared to the conventional technique, indicating the value of introducing digital dentistry early in dental hygiene education.

show abstract

Conventional Vs Digital Impressions: Acceptability, Treatment Comfort and Stress Among Young Orthodontic Patients

Cited by 65 publications

References 14 publications

Accuracy of Implant Casts Generated with Conventional and Digital Impressions—An In Vitro Study

Accuracy of Implant Casts Generated with Conventional and Digital Impressions—An In Vitro Study

Patient preference and operating time for digital versus conventional impressions: a network meta‐analysis

A comparison study: The use of digital and conventional impression techniques in dental hygiene education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About