Patient preference and operating time for digital versus conventional impressions: a network meta-analysis

G Sivaramakrishnan, M Alsobaiei, K Sridharan, G Sivaramakrishnan, M Alsobaiei, K Sridharan

Abstract

Background: Digital impression techniques have seen many advancements, with new hardware and software being developed each year. The technical advantages of these systems are real-time visualization, evaluation and archive, segmental capture, ease of recapture if necessary, economical in terms of no use of impression material or trays or disinfection, easy file transfer and communication with the laboratory. However patient satisfaction is one major factor that might influence the choice of impression technique. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to identify statistically the evidence on overall patient preferences relative to digital versus conventional impression techniques, in addition to the time taken in making these impressions.

Methodology: Randomized or prospective clinical studies were identified based on the inclusion criteria in PUBMED, DARE and COCHRANE databases; subsequently pertinent data were extracted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Heterogeneity amongst the studies in direct comparison was assessed by Chi-square and I2 tests using the Inverse variance heterogeneity model. Direct comparison estimates were derived by pooling the data from studies that compared the same intervention. Indirect comparison pooled estimates were derived by using the data amongst the studies, through a common comparator, using MetaXL software. Mean differences and Odds ratio at 95% confidence interval were used as the effect estimates, while inconsistencies were evaluated by H-statistics. GRADE working group approach was used to assess the quality of available evidence.

Results: Fourteen studies were included. Results from 11 studies on 471 patients (236-Digital; 235-conventional) were pooled for patient preference with 95% confidence interval. The Forest plot showed a pooled estimate of 31.23 [5.95, 163.87], showing a statistically significant number of patients favouring digital impressions. Results from 11 studies reported the time taken in 589 patients (278-digital; 311 conventional). The pooled estimate (2.72 [0.08, 5.32]) (95% confidence interval) showed a statistically significant increase in the time required to make digital impressions. The overall time taken in minutes for the interventions in the digital group in decreasing order were: LAVA Cos (8.14[3.64,12,26] (statistically significant); I tero (4.11[-1.02,9.24]; CEREC (0.34[-4.14,4.82]).

Conclusion: There was an overall preference for digital impressions, although the time required is longer. The factors related to the digital system, the operator and the patient were studied, with recommendations forming a basis for possible hardware and software upgrades of the digital systems that can produce significant improvement in the acceptance rate for both the patient and the clinician.

Keywords: Digital record; digital scanner; intraoral photo; intraoral scanner.

© 2019 Australian Dental Association.

References

    1. Papadiochos I, Papadiochou S, Emmanouil I. The historical evolution of dental impression materials. J Hist Dent 2017;65:79-89.
    1. Donovan TE, Chee WW. A review of contemporary impression materials and techniques. Dent Clin North Am 2004;48:445-470.
    1. Punj A, Bompolaki D, Garaicoa J. Dental impression materials and techniques. Dent Clin North Am 2017;61:779-796.
    1. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, et al. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 2009;28:44-56.
    1. Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mormann WH, et al. Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview. Int J Comput Dent 2015;18:101-129.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1006-1012.
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (eds). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 5.1.0 edn. . Accessed February 09, 2017.
    1. Benic GI, Mühlemann S, Fehmer V, Hämmerle CH, Sailer I. Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part I: digital versus conventional unilateral impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:777-782.
    1. Burhardt L, Livas C, Kerdijk W, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y. Treatment comfort, time perception, and preference for conventional and digital impression techniques: a comparative study in young patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150:261-7.
    1. Dan Ni GU, Yu Shu LI, Shao Xia PA, et al. Clinical efficiency and patient preference of immediate digital impression after implant placement for single implant-supported crown. Chin J Dent Res 2019;22:21-28.
    1. Di Fiore A, Vigolo P, Graiff L, Stellini E. Digital vs conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns: a comparison of key considerations. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31:577-579.
    1. Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK, Collin-Bagewitz I, Kisch J. Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial. J Prosthodont. 2016;25:282-287.
    1. Grünheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;146:673-682.
    1. Joda T, Brägger U. Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:185-189.
    1. Mangano A, Beretta M, Luongo G, Mangano C, Mangano F. Conventional vs digital impressions: acceptability, treatment comfort and stress among young orthodontic patients. Open Dent J 2018;12:118-124.
    1. Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Fehmer V, Hämmerle CHF, Benic GI. Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part I: time efficiency of complete-arch digital scans versus conventional impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:69-75.
    1. Sakornwimon N, Leevailoj C. Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patient preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:386-391.
    1. Schepke U, Meijer HJ, Kerdijk W, Cune MS. Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: operating time and patient preference. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:403-406.
    1. Vasudavan S, Sullivan SR, Sonis AL. Comparison of intraoral 3D scanning and conventional impressions for fabrication of orthodontic retainers. J Clin Orthod 2010;44:495-497.
    1. Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patient preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:1113-1118.
    1. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014;30:14-17.
    1. Mörmann WH The origin of the CEREC method: a personal review of the first 5 years. Int J Comput Dent 2004;7:11-24.
    1. Mörmann WH. The evolution of the CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137(Suppl):7S-13S.
    1. Prudente MS, Davi LR, Nabbout KO, et al. Influence of scanner, powder application, and adjustments on CAD-CAM crown misfit. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:377-383.
    1. Hategan SI, Ionel TF, Goguta L, Gavrilovici A, Negrutiu ML, Jivanescu A. Powder and powder-free intra-oral scanners: digital impression accuracy. Prim Dent J 2018;7:40-43.
    1. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: an in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:36-42.
    1. Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, et al. Intraoral scanner technologies: a review to make a successful impression. J Healthc Eng 2017;2017:1-9.
    1. CEREC omnicam versus bluecam. . Accessed 18-07-2019.
    1. i TERO intraoral scanner. . Accessed July 23, 2019.
    1. LAVA Cos intraoral scanner. . Accessed July 23, 2019.
    1. Al Hamad KQ. Learning curve of intraoral scanning by prosthodontic residents. J Prosthet Dent 2019 May 10. pii: S0022-3913(19)30228-8.
    1. Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: a systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018;26:101-121.
    1. Lim JH, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Myung JY. Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:225-232.
    1. Arakida T, Kanazawa M, Iwaki M, Suzuki T, Minakuchi S. Evaluating the influence of ambient light on scanning trueness, precision, and time of intra oral scanner. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62:324-329.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir