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

Emir Yuzbasioglu, Hanefi Kurt, Rana Turunc, Halenur Bilir, Emir Yuzbasioglu, Hanefi Kurt, Rana Turunc, Halenur Bilir

Abstract

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.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Conventional impression technique. Conventional impression technique. A) Adhesive application, B) Impression tray loading, C) Upper and lower arches impression, D) Bite registration.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Digital impression technique. A) Entering patient information, B) Laboratory prescription, C) Upper and lower arches scanning, D) Bite scanning.

References

    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. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2002.128070.
    1. Mormann WH, Brandestini M, Lutz F. The Cerec system: computer-assisted preparation of direct ceramic inlays in 1 setting. Quintessenz. 1987;38:457–470.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. Posselt A, Kerschbaum T. Longevity of 2328 chairside CEREC inlays and onlays. Int J Comput Dent. 2003;6:231–248.
    1. The glossary of prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;94(1):10–92. .
    1. 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. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70014-X.
    1. 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.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60026-8.
    1. Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100(4):285–291. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60208-5.
    1. Wee AG. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83(3):323–331. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70136-3.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2002.121240.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2003.38.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00276-2.
    1. Chee W, Jivraj S. Impression techniques for implant dentistry. Br Dent J. 2006;201(7):429–432. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4814118.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2003.15.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.08.015.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2001.118452.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2001.118456.
    1. Alhouri N, McCord JF, Smith PW. The quality of dental casts used in crown and bridgework. Br Dent J. 2004;197(5):261–264. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4811621.
    1. Powers J. In: Craig’s Restorative Dental Materials. Powers J, editor. St Louis: Mosby; 2006. Gypsum products and investments; pp. 313–336.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70043-6.
    1. Powers J. In: Craig’s Restorative Dental Materials. Powers J, editor. St Louis: Mosby; 2006. Impression materials; pp. 269–312.
    1. 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.
    1. 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: .
    1. 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. doi: 10.11607/ijp.3014.
    1. Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. JADA. 2009;140:1301–1304.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.03.015.
    1. Henkel GL. A comparison of fixed prostheses generated from conventional vs digitally scanned dental impressions. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2007;28:422–424.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-0923-5.
    1. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression technique and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(7):1759–1764. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0864-4.
    1. 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.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0.
    1. 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.
    1. Mehl A, Ender A, Mörmann W, Attin T. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent. 2009;12:11–28.
    1. Ender A, Melh A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions. An in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent. 2011;14:11–21.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043312.
    1. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 2013;24(1):111–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02430.x.
    1. Öner N, Le Compte A. Handbook of state-trait anxiety inventory. Istanbul: Bogazici University; 1985.
    1. Polido WD. Digital impressions and handling of digital models: the future of dentistry. Dental Press J Orthod. 2010;15(5):18–22. doi: 10.1590/S2176-94512010000500003.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren