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

BMC Oral Health

Halenur Bilir¹  Rana Turunc¹  Hanefi Kurt¹  Emir Yuzbasioglu¹ 

[1] Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey

关键词: Patient preference;    Patient comfort;    Clinical efficiency;    Digital impression;   

Others  :  1121471
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6831-14-10

 received in 2013-09-25, accepted in 2014-01-29,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare two impression techniques from the perspective of patient preferences and treatment comfort.

Methods

Twenty-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.

Results

There 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.

Conclusions

Digital impressions resulted in a more time-efficient technique than conventional impressions. Patients preferred the digital impression technique rather than conventional techniques.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Yuzbasioglu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]De La Cruz JE, Funkenbusch PD, Ercoli C, Moss ME, Graser GN, Tallents RH: Verification jig for implant supported prosthesis: a comparison of standard impressions with verification jigs made of different materials. J Prosthet Dent 2002, 88:329-336.
• [2]Mormann WH, Brandestini M, Lutz F: The Cerec system: computer-assisted preparation of direct ceramic inlays in 1 setting. Quintessenz 1987, 38:457-470.
• [3]Luthardt R, Weber A, Rudolph H, Schone C, Quaas S, Walter M: Design and production of dental prosthetic restorations: basic research on dental CAD/CAM technology. Int J Comput Dent 2002, 5:165-176.
• [4]Otto T, Schneider D: Long-term clinical results of chairside CEREC CAD/CAM inlays and onlays: a case series. Int J Prosthodont 2008, 21(1):53-59.
• [5]Wiedhahn K, Kerschbaum T, Fasbinder DF: Clinical long-term results with 617 CEREC veneers: a nine-year report. Int J Comput Dent 2005, 8:233-246.
• [6]Sjögren G, Molin M, Van Dijken JW: A 10-year prospective evaluation of CAD/CAM-manufactured (CEREC) ceramic inlays cemented with a chemically cured or dual-cured resin composite. Int J Prosthodont 2004, 17(2):241-246.
• [7]Posselt A, Kerschbaum T: Longevity of 2328 chairside CEREC inlays and onlays. Int J Comput Dent 2003, 6:231-248.
• [8]The glossary of prosthodontic terms J Prosthet Dent 2005, 94(1):10-92. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16080238 webcite
• [9]Herbst D, Nel JC, Driessen CH, Becker PJ: Evaluation of impression accuracy for osseointegrated implant supported superstructures. J Prosthet Dent 2000, 83(5):555-561.
• [10]Walker MP, Ries D, Borello B: Implant cast accuracy as a function of impression techniques and impression material viscosity. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008, 23(4):669-674.
• [11]Lee H, Ercoli C, Funkenbusch PD, Feng C: Effect of subgingival depth of implant placement on the dimensional accuracy of the implant impression: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2008, 99(2):107-113.
• [12]Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C: The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2008, 100(4):285-291.
• [13]Wee AG: Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2000, 83(3):323-331.
• [14]Brosky ME, Pesun IJ, Lowder PD, Delong R, Hodges JS: Laser digitization of casts to determine the effect of tray selection and cast formation technique on accuracy. J Prosthet Dent 2002, 87(2):204-209.
• [15]Burns J, Palmer R, Howe L, Wilson R: Accuracy of open tray implant impressions: an in vitro comparison of stock versus custom trays. J Prosthet Dent 2003, 89(3):250-255.
• [16]Ceyhan JA, Johnson GH, Lepe X: The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2003, 90(2):143-149.
• [17]Chee W, Jivraj S: Impression techniques for implant dentistry. Br Dent J 2006, 201(7):429-432.
• [18]Vigolo P, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G: Evaluation of the accuracy of three techniques used for multiple implant abutment impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2003, 89(2):186-192.
• [19]Vigolo P, Fonzi F, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G: An evaluation of impression techniques for multiple internal connection implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2004, 92(5):470-476.
• [20]Rudd RW, Rudd KD: A review of 243 errors possible during the fabrication of a removable partial denture: part II. J Prosthet Dent 2001, 86(3):262-276.
• [21]Rudd RW, Rudd KD: A review of 243 errors possible during the fabrication of a removable partial denture: part III. J Prosthet Dent 2001, 86(3):277-288.
• [22]Alhouri N, McCord JF, Smith PW: The quality of dental casts used in crown and bridgework. Br Dent J 2004, 197(5):261-264.
• [23]Powers J: Gypsum products and investments. In Craig’s Restorative Dental Materials. Edited by Powers J. St Louis: Mosby; 2006:313-336.
• [24]Duke P, Moore BK, Haug SP, Andres CJ: Study of the physical properties of type IV gypsum, resin-containing, epoxy die materials. J Prosthet Dent 2000, 83:466-473.
• [25]Powers J: Impression materials. In Craig’s Restorative Dental Materials. Edited by Powers J. St Louis: Mosby; 2006:269-312.
• [26]Wöstmann B, Rehmann P, Balkenhol M: Influence of impression technique and material on the accuracy of multiple implant impressions. Int J Prosthodont 2008, 21(4):299-301.
• [27]Birnbaum N, Aaronson HB, Stevens C, Cohen B: 3D digital scanners: a high-tech approach to more accurate dental impressions. Inside Dentistry 2009., 5(4) Available from: http://www.insidedentistry.net webcite
• [28]Kim SY, Kim MJ, Han JS, Yeo IS, Lim YJ, Kwon HB: Accuracy of dies captured by an intraoral digital impression system using parallel confocal imaging. Int J Prosthodont 2013, 26(2):161-163.
• [29]Christensen GJ: Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. JADA 2009, 140:1301-1304.
• [30]Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J: Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 2010, 38:553-559.
• [31]Henkel GL: A comparison of fixed prostheses generated from conventional vs digitally scanned dental impressions. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2007, 28:422-424.
• [32]Brawek PK, Wolfart S, Endres L, Kirsten A, Reich S: The clinical accuracy of single crowns exclusively fabricated by digital workflow the comparison of two systems. Clin Oral Investig 2013, 17(9):2119-2125.
• [33]Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B: Accuracy of digital and conventional impression technique and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2013, 17(7):1759-1764.
• [34]Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S: Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 2005, 8:283-294.
• [35]Güth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D: Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 2013, 17:1201-1208.
• [36]Karl M, Shubinski P, Taylor T: Effect of intraoral scanning on the passivity of fit of implant-supported fixed partial prostheses. Quintessence Int 2012, 43:555-563.
• [37]Mehl A, Ender A, Mörmann W, Attin T: Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 2009, 12:11-28.
• [38]Ender A, Melh A: Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions. An in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011, 14:11-21.
• [39]van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y: Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One 2012, 7:e43312.
• [40]Lee SJ, Gallucci GO: Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin. Oral Impl. Res 2013, 24(1):111-115.
• [41]Öner N, Le Compte A: Handbook of state-trait anxiety inventory. Istanbul: Bogazici University; 1985.
• [42]Polido WD: Digital impressions and handling of digital models: the future of dentistry. Dental Press J Orthod 2010, 15(5):18-22.