Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial.

Joda, Tim Alexander; Lenherr, Patrik; Dedem, Philipp; Kovaltschuk, Irina; Brägger, Urs; Zitzmann, Nicola U (2017). Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical oral implants research, 28(10), pp. 1318-1323. Wiley-Blackwell 10.1111/clr.12982

[img] Text
clr.12982.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (593kB) | Request a copy

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to analyze implant impression techniques applying intraoral scanning (IOS) and the conventional method according to time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred participants (n = 100) with diverse levels of dental experience were included and randomly assigned to Group A performing digital scanning (TRIOS Pod) first or Group B conducting conventional impression (open tray with elastomer) first, while the second method was performed consecutively. A customized maxillary model with a bone-level-type implant in the right canine position (FDI-position 13) was mounted on a phantom training unit realizing a standardized situation for all participants. Outcome parameter was time efficiency, and potential influence of clinical experience, operator's perception of level of difficulty, applicability of each method, and subjective preferences were analyzed with Wilcoxon -Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

RESULTS

Mean total work time varied between 5.01 ± 1.56 min (students) and 4.53 ± 1.34 min (dentists) for IOS, and between 12.03 ± 2.00 min (students) and 10.09 ± 1.15 min (dentists) for conventional impressions with significant differences between the two methods. Neither assignment to Group A or B, nor gender nor number of impression-taking procedures did influence working time. Difficulty and applicability of IOS was perceived more favorable compared to conventional impressions, and effectiveness of IOS was rated better by the majority of students (88%) and dentists (64%). While 76% of the students preferred IOS, 48% of the dentists were favoring conventional impressions, and 26% each IOS and either technique.

CONCLUSIONS

For single-implant sites, the quadrant-like intraoral scanning (IOS) was more time efficient than the conventional full-arch impression technique in a phantom head simulating standardized optimal conditions. A high level of acceptance for IOS was observed among students and dentists.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > School of Dental Medicine > Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology

UniBE Contributor:

Joda, Tim Alexander and Brägger, Urs

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

0905-7161

Publisher:

Wiley-Blackwell

Language:

English

Submitter:

Vanda Kummer

Date Deposited:

23 Jul 2019 12:31

Last Modified:

22 Oct 2019 17:23

Publisher DOI:

10.1111/clr.12982

PubMed ID:

27596805

Uncontrolled Keywords:

dental implant digital impression intraoral scan operator preference prosthodontics randomized controlled trial (RCT) time efficiency

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.123734

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/123734

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback