PURPOSE: To compare digital and conventional impression techniques in a randomized clinical trial; specifically, procedure times, patient-centered outcomes, and clinical evaluation of the restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Forty-two patients in need of tooth-supported single crowns and/or fixed partial prostheses up to six units were randomly allocated to one of the impression techniques. The procedure times, dentists' and patients' assessments using a visual analog scale (VAS), and clinical evaluation of the restorations were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The mean total procedure times for digital and conventional impression technique were 14:33 ± 5:27 and 20:42 ± 5:42, respectively (p < 0.0001). Mean impression times were 7:33 ± 3.37 and 11:33 ± 1.56, respectively (p < 0.0001). Mean VAS scores for the dentist's assessment of difficulty (0 to 100; very difficult = 100) were 24.00 ± 18.02 and 48.02 ± 21.21, respectively (p < 0.0001). Mean VAS scores for the patients' assessment of discomfort (0 to 100; very discomforting = 100) was 6.50 ± 5.87 and 44.86 ± 27.13, respectively (p < 0.0001). Occlusal contacts showed a better result for the digital technique. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrated that the digital technique was more efficient and convenient than the conventional impression technique.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare digital and conventional impression techniques in a randomized clinical trial; specifically, procedure times, patient-centered outcomes, and clinical evaluation of the restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients in need of tooth-supported single crowns and/or fixed partial prostheses up to six units were randomly allocated to one of the impression techniques. The procedure times, dentists' and patients' assessments using a visual analog scale (VAS), and clinical evaluation of the restorations were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The mean total procedure times for digital and conventional impression technique were 14:33 ± 5:27 and 20:42 ± 5:42, respectively (p < 0.0001). Mean impression times were 7:33 ± 3.37 and 11:33 ± 1.56, respectively (p < 0.0001). Mean VAS scores for the dentist's assessment of difficulty (0 to 100; very difficult = 100) were 24.00 ± 18.02 and 48.02 ± 21.21, respectively (p < 0.0001). Mean VAS scores for the patients' assessment of discomfort (0 to 100; very discomforting = 100) was 6.50 ± 5.87 and 44.86 ± 27.13, respectively (p < 0.0001). Occlusal contacts showed a better result for the digital technique. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrated that the digital technique was more efficient and convenient than the conventional impression technique.
Authors: Georges E Daoud; Dante L Pezzutti; Calvin J Dolatowski; Ricardo L Carrau; Mary Pancake; Edward Herderick; Kyle K VanKoevering Journal: J Mater Res Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 3.089