Patient preference and clinical working time between digital scanning and conventional impression making for implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Manicone, Paolo Francesco; Angelis, Paolo De; Rella, Edoardo; Damis, Giovanni; D’Addona, Antonio

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.11.042

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the success of digital impressions can depend on the specific technology utilized and on the operator's proficiency. Despite these benefits, some studies note that the initial cost of digital systems can be high, and there may be a learning curve associated with their adoption [56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65].…”

Section: Discussion Regarding the Impression Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

Conventional Dental Impressions vs. Impressions Reinforced with Rigid Mouthguards

Novac,

Tudor,

Pop

et al. 2024

Polymers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impression materials utilized today in dental medicine offer a good reproducibility and are easily accepted by patients. However, because they are polymer-based, they have issues regarding their dimensional stability. In this respect, the present work proposes a new type of dental impression, which is reinforced with rigid mouthguards. The aim of the study is to test the performances of such new impressions by comparing them to conventional ones—from this critical point of view, of the dimensional stability. Three types of polymeric materials were considered for both types of impressions: alginate, condensation silicone, and addition silicone. In order to obtain the new type of impressions, a manufacturing technique was developed, comprising the following phases: (i) conventional impressions were made; (ii) a plaster model was duplicated, and 15 rigid mouthguards were obtained; (iii) they were inserted in the impression technique, with each mouthguard positioned on the cast before the high-consistency material was inserted in the tray and the practitioner took the impression; (iv) the mouthguard remained in the tray and the low-viscosity material was inserted over the mouthguard; (v) the impression was positioned on the model, and after the material hardened, the mouthguard-reinforced impression was analyzed. In the evaluation of the dimensional stability, rigorous statistical analysis was essential to discern the performance differences between conventional and mouthguard-reinforced dental impressions. Statistical analyses employed non-parametric Mann–Whitney U tests because of the non-normal distribution of the data. They indicated a statistically significant improvement in the dimensional stability of addition silicone impressions when reinforced with mouthguards (p < 0.05), showcasing superior performance over conventional methods. Conversely, alginate and condensation silicone reinforced impressions did not exhibit the same level of stability improvement, suggesting the need for further optimization of these materials. In conclusion, from the three considered elastomers, addition silicone was found to be the prime candidate for high-precision dental impressions, with the potential to improve their quality from conventional impressions by utilizing the proposed reinforcing technique.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Regarding the Impression Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

Conventional Dental Impressions vs. Impressions Reinforced with Rigid Mouthguards

Novac,

Tudor,

Pop

et al. 2024

Polymers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many studies have deepened this aspect: a recent systematic review concluded that digital impressions are faster than conventional ones, improving the patients' dental experience and comfort [31]. These conclusions are shared between authors, including regarding digital procedures in children [33,[36][37][38]. Consistent with them, our results showed that the patients subjected to digital impressions reported a better experience and better comfort than the conventional impression techniques, with a significant p-value (p < 0.0001), confirming better acceptance of the digital workflow compared to the conventional one.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Corsalini,

Barile,

Ranieri

et al. 2024

JFB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The progress of digital technologies in dental prosthodontics is fast and increasingly accurate, allowing practitioners to simplify their daily work. These technologies aim to substitute conventional techniques progressively, but their real efficiency and predictability are still under debate. Many systematic reviews emphasize the lack of clinical RCTs that compare digital and traditional workflow. To address this evidence, we conducted a three-arm designed clinical RCT, which compares fully digital, combined digital, and analogic and fully analog workflows. We aimed to compare the clinical properties of each workflow regarding interproximal (IC) and occlusal contact (OC), marginal fit, impression time (IT), and patient satisfaction through a VAS scale. In total, 72 patients were included in the study. The IC and OC of the digital workflow were better than the others (p < 0.001), which obtained similar results. No difference between implant–abutment fit was observed (p = 0.5966). The IT was shorter in the digital workflow than the others (p < 0.001), which were similar. Patient satisfaction was higher in the digital workflow than in the conventional one. Despite the limitations, this study’s results support better accuracy and patient tolerance of digital workflow than of conventional techniques, suggesting it as a viable alternative to the latter when performed by clinicians experienced in digital dentistry.

show abstract

“…Gallardo et al [53] agreed that current evidence suggests that patients prefer digital workflow over traditional techniques. Bandiaky et al [56], Siqueira et al [61], de Paris Matos et al [63], Manicone et al [65], and Bishti et al [67] demonstrate how intraoral scanning causes less discomfort for patients than traditional impression techniques and how intraoral scanner can improve the patient experience as measured by general preference and comfort.…”

Section: Patient Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Manicon et al found that implant digital impression was more time efficient than conventional impression-taking for implant-supported restorations [65].…”

Section: Clinical Considerations For Implant Impressionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conventional versus Digital Dental Impression Techniques: What Is the Future? An Umbrella Review

D’Ambrosio,

Giordano,

Sangiovanni

et al. 2023

Prosthesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A prosthetic rehabilitation, whether supported by implants, teeth, or mucous membranes, must be functionally and aesthetically adequate, so it is essential that the oral structures are reproduced as accurately as possible. The purpose of this overview is to evaluate the accuracy, time of digital impressions, and patient preference compared to those of conventional high-precision in vivo impressions. This umbrella review was developed following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement and was registered in the PROSPERO systematic review registry. The search method and study selection were based on the PEO (Population–Exposure–Outcome) model, a modified version of the PICO model. Systematic reviews regarding the dental impression technique made using an intraoral scanner versus the analog impression technique made with high-precision impression materials were searched electronically up to 1 February 2023 among articles published in English, through numerous registries and databases, such as PROSPERO e, Scopus, MEDLINE/ PubMed, BioMed Central, and Cochrane Library. The records screened totaled 2942, but only 23 systematic reviews were included in this umbrella review. The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool was used to evaluate the quality assessment of the systematic reviews included in this umbrella review. Accuracy, time, and patient preference for digital impressions were compared with those of high-precision conventional impressions. A total of 23 systematic reviews were included in this umbrella review. From the analysis of this umbrella review, the data on the accuracy between the two methods of taking the impression are conflicting, especially as regards full-arch rehabilitations. However, the digital impression seems to be preferred over the analog one as regards time and patient preference. However, there is limited high-quality evidence available for studying conventional and digital implant impressions. The results obtained are limited to the type of review performed, and the type of studies included was limited by the settings and study designs. Furthermore, another important limitation highlighted was that the digital scanners analyzed in the various studies are not the same, and the number of missing teeth or implants inserted is not the same. More in vivo clinical studies and RCTs are needed to increase the level of evidence for impression procedures.

show abstract

Patient preference and clinical working time between digital scanning and conventional impression making for implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 13 publications

References 24 publications

Conventional Dental Impressions vs. Impressions Reinforced with Rigid Mouthguards

Conventional Dental Impressions vs. Impressions Reinforced with Rigid Mouthguards

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

Conventional versus Digital Dental Impression Techniques: What Is the Future? An Umbrella Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About