Dental impression techniques assessment: patients' rating and perceptions

International Conference on Innovative Research - ICIR EUROINVENT 2019

Bolat, M.^1 ; Bosinceanu, D.-N.^2 ; Surlari, Z.^3 ; Ciocan-Pendefunda, A.^3 ; Bida, C.^2 ; Balcos, C.^4 ; Bosinceanu, D.-G.^2

Department of Dental Materials, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Iasi, Faculty of Dental Medicine, 16 Universitatii Str., Iasi

700115, Romania^1

Department of Removable Prosthodontics, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Iasi, Faculty of Dental Medicine, 16 Universitatii Str., Iasi

700115, Romania^2

Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Iasi, Faculty of Dental Medicine, 16 Universitatii Str., Iasi

700115, Romania^3

Department of Dental Prevention, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Iasi, Faculty of Dental Medicine, 16 Universitatii Str., Iasi

700115, Romania^4

关键词: Allergic reactions;    Digital technologies;    Field inspection;    Impression materials;    Impression technique;    Patient preferences;    Reference values;    Wilcoxon signed rank test;   

Others  :  https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/572/1/012089/pdf
DOI  :  10.1088/1757-899X/572/1/012089

来源: IOP

【 摘 要 】

Dental impression in dentistry is used for many purposes. One of these is to make a model that allows the study of fine details outside the oral cavity, which is sometimes impossible to achieve by direct prosthetic field inspection. Purpose: Through the study, we aim to highlight the importance of the patient's understanding and availability of the prosthetic field impression techniques. Material and method: The study lot consisted of 54 patients who formed the data base processed throughout the research, men and women aged 35 to 50 with a partial or total edentation. Conventional impression for mandibular and maxillary jaw were taken with a polyether type material (Impregum, 3 M ESPE) and addition silicones (Express STD Putty Regular Set 3M), and digital impression was done with the AC Omnicam chairside system (Cerec OMNICAM, Sirona Dental GmBH). Interpretation of results was performed using statistical programs SPSS 15.0 and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test, with p = 0.05 as the minimum statistical reference value. Patient preference for impression technique was evaluated with a comparative questionnaire of 5 questions, the results being interpreted with SPSS 15.0. Conclusions: Following the study, digital impression offers increased patient comfort for many reasons. The small size of the intraoral scanner eliminates the inconvenience of holding a voluminous, material-loaded portrait that generates the feeling of vomiting in many patients. At the same time, several patients may experience allergic reactions of impression materials, a situation that does not occur using digital technology. There is also a risk of swallowing the impression material in the event of improper handling.