OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this clinical study was to assess the patients' perception of the difference between an analogue impression approach on the one hand and an intra-oral scan (IO scan) on the other when restoring implants in the non-aesthetic zone. A second objective was to analyse the difference in time needed to perform these two procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients who had received 41 implants (Straumann tissue level) in the non-aesthetic zone in an implant-based referral practice setting in the Netherlands. As they were to receive crown and or bridge work on the implants, in one session, the final impressions were taken with both an analogue technique and with an intraoral scan. Patients were also asked if, directly after the treatment was carried out, they would be prepared to fill out a questionnaire on their perception of both techniques. The time involved following these two procedures was also recorded. RESULTS: The preparatory activities of the treatment, the taste of the impression material and the overall preference of the patients were significantly in favour of the IO scan. The bite registration, the scan head and gag reflex positively tended to the IO scan, but none of these effects were significant. The overall time involved with the IO scan was more negatively perceived than the analogue impression. Overall less time was involved when following the analogue impression technique than with the IO scan. CONCLUSIONS: The overall preference of the patients in our sample is significantly in favour of the approach using the IO scan. This preference relates mainly to the differences between the compared approaches with respect to taste effects and their preparatory activities. The patients did perceive the duration of IO scan more negatively than the analogue impression approach.
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this clinical study was to assess the patients' perception of the difference between an analogue impression approach on the one hand and an intra-oral scan (IO scan) on the other when restoring implants in the non-aesthetic zone. A second objective was to analyse the difference in time needed to perform these two procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients who had received 41 implants (Straumann tissue level) in the non-aesthetic zone in an implant-based referral practice setting in the Netherlands. As they were to receive crown and or bridge work on the implants, in one session, the final impressions were taken with both an analogue technique and with an intraoral scan. Patients were also asked if, directly after the treatment was carried out, they would be prepared to fill out a questionnaire on their perception of both techniques. The time involved following these two procedures was also recorded. RESULTS: The preparatory activities of the treatment, the taste of the impression material and the overall preference of the patients were significantly in favour of the IO scan. The bite registration, the scan head and gag reflex positively tended to the IO scan, but none of these effects were significant. The overall time involved with the IO scan was more negatively perceived than the analogue impression. Overall less time was involved when following the analogue impression technique than with the IO scan. CONCLUSIONS: The overall preference of the patients in our sample is significantly in favour of the approach using the IO scan. This preference relates mainly to the differences between the compared approaches with respect to taste effects and their preparatory activities. The patients did perceive the duration of IO scan more negatively than the analogue impression approach.