Impressions Are Changing

Christensen, Gordon J.

doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0054

Cited by 162 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Digital impressions offer speed, efficiency, ability of storing captured information indefinitely and transferring digital images between the dental office and the laboratory [28]. The advantages of the digital impressions and scanning systems are improving patient acceptance, reducing the distortion of impression materials, 3D pre-visualization of tooth preparations, and potential cost- and time-effectiveness [29]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare two impression techniques from the perspective of patient preferences and treatment comfort.MethodsTwenty-four (12 male, 12 female) subjects who had no previous experience with either conventional or digital impression participated in this study. Conventional impressions of maxillary and mandibular dental arches were taken with a polyether impression material (Impregum, 3 M ESPE), and bite registrations were made with polysiloxane bite registration material (Futar D, Kettenbach). Two weeks later, digital impressions and bite scans were performed using an intra-oral scanner (CEREC Omnicam, Sirona). Immediately after the impressions were made, the subjects’ attitudes, preferences and perceptions towards impression techniques were evaluated using a standardized questionnaire. The perceived source of stress was evaluated using the State-Trait Anxiety Scale. Processing steps of the impression techniques (tray selection, working time etc.) were recorded in seconds. Statistical analyses were performed with the Wilcoxon Rank test, and p < 0.05 was considered significant.ResultsThere were significant differences among the groups (p < 0.05) in terms of total working time and processing steps. Patients stated that digital impressions were more comfortable than conventional techniques.ConclusionsDigital impressions resulted in a more time-efficient technique than conventional impressions. Patients preferred the digital impression technique rather than conventional techniques.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, a range of systems, including iTero (Cadent Inc., Carlstadt, NJ, USA) and Lava COS (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) were introduced 10. CEREC is an in-office system with chairside milling, whereas iTero and Lava COS are digital impression devices that export the data to the laboratory via the internet 11. In particular, iTero is an open system that is compatible with any software that accepts STL files 12.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the accuracy of digitally fabricated polyurethane model and conventional gypsum model

Kim

Lee

Cho³

et al. 2014

J Adv Prosthodont

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE.The accuracy of a gypsum model (GM), which was taken using a conventional silicone impression technique, was compared with that of a polyurethane model (PM), which was taken using an iTero™ digital impression system. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The maxillary first molar artificial tooth was selected as the reference tooth. The GMs were fabricated through a silicone impression of a reference tooth, and PMs were fabricated by a digital impression (n=9, in each group). The reference tooth and experimental models were scanned using a 3 shape convince TM scan system. Each GM and PM image was superimposed on the registered reference model (RM) and 2D images were obtained. The discrepancies of the points registered on the superimposed images were measured and defined as GM-RM group and PM-RM group. Statistical analysis was performed using a Student's T-test (α=0.05). RESULTS. A comparison of the absolute value of the discrepancy revealed a significant difference between the two groups only at the occlusal surface. The GM group showed a smaller mean discrepancy than the PM group. Significant differences in the GM-RM group and PM-RM group were observed in the margins (point a and f), mesial mid-axial wall (point b) and occlusal surfaces (point c and d). CONCLUSION. Under the conditions examined, the digitally fabricated polyurethane model showed a tendency for a reduced size in the margin than the reference tooth. The conventional gypsum model showed a smaller discrepancy on the occlusal surface than the polyurethane model.

show abstract

“…

Background: There is a scarce knowledge on the accuracy of intraoral digital impression systems for dental implants.Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of a digital impression system considering clinical parameters.

Materials and Methods:A master model with six implants (27,25,22,12,15,17) was fitted with polyether ether ketone scan bodies. Implant no.

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of a Digital Impression System Based on Active Wavefront Sampling Technology for Implants Considering Operator Experience, Implant Angulation, and Depth

Giménez

Özcan

Martínez-Rus

et al. 2013

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

148

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Impressions Are Changing

Cited by 162 publications

References 10 publications

Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes

Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes

Comparison of the accuracy of digitally fabricated polyurethane model and conventional gypsum model

Accuracy of a Digital Impression System Based on Active Wavefront Sampling Technology for Implants Considering Operator Experience, Implant Angulation, and Depth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About