Tim Joda1, Urs Brägger1. 1. Division of Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to compare patient-centered outcomes during digital and conventional implant impressions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a crossover study design, intraoral scanning (IOS) [test] as well as classical polyether impressions [control] were both performed on 20 patients for single-tooth replacement with implant-supported crowns. The sequential distribution of either starting with the test or the control procedure was randomly selected. Patients' perception and satisfaction on the level of convenience-related factors were assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS) questionnaires. In addition, clinical work time was separately recorded for test and control procedures. Statistical analyses were performed with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and corrected for multiple testing by the method of Holm. RESULTS: On VAS ranging from 0 to 100, patients scored a mean convenience level of 78.6 (SD ± 14.0) in favor of IOS compared to conventional impressions with 53.6 (SD ± 15.4) [P = 0.0001]. All included patients would prefer the digital workflow if in the future they could choose between the two techniques. Secondary, IOS was significantly faster with 14.8 min (SD ± 2.2) compared to the conventional approach with 17.9 min (SD ± 1.1) [P = 0.0001]. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this investigation, both impression protocols worked successfully for all study participants capturing the 3D implant positions. However, the digital technique emerges as the most preferred one according to patient-centered outcomes and was more time-effective compared to conventional impressions.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to compare patient-centered outcomes during digital and conventional implant impressions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a crossover study design, intraoral scanning (IOS) [test] as well as classical polyether impressions [control] were both performed on 20 patients for single-tooth replacement with implant-supported crowns. The sequential distribution of either starting with the test or the control procedure was randomly selected. Patients' perception and satisfaction on the level of convenience-related factors were assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS) questionnaires. In addition, clinical work time was separately recorded for test and control procedures. Statistical analyses were performed with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and corrected for multiple testing by the method of Holm. RESULTS: On VAS ranging from 0 to 100, patients scored a mean convenience level of 78.6 (SD ± 14.0) in favor of IOS compared to conventional impressions with 53.6 (SD ± 15.4) [P = 0.0001]. All included patients would prefer the digital workflow if in the future they could choose between the two techniques. Secondary, IOS was significantly faster with 14.8 min (SD ± 2.2) compared to the conventional approach with 17.9 min (SD ± 1.1) [P = 0.0001]. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this investigation, both impression protocols worked successfully for all study participants capturing the 3D implant positions. However, the digital technique emerges as the most preferred one according to patient-centered outcomes and was more time-effective compared to conventional impressions.