Jisun Kim1, Ji-Man Park2, Minji Kim3, Seong-Joo Heo4, Im Hee Shin5, Miae Kim6. 1. Graduate student, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea. 2. Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University Gwanak Dental Hospital, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: jimarn@snu.ac.kr. 3. Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea. 4. Professor, Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. 5. Professor, Department of Medical Statistics, Catholic University of Daegu, School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea. 6. Resident, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Conventional impression-making methods are being replaced by intraoral digital scanning. How long dental professionals take to master the new technologies is unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this human subject study was to compare the experience curves of 2 intraoral scanners among dental hygienists and determine whether repeated scanning experience could change the scan time (ST). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 29 dental hygienists with more than 3 years of working experience were recruited (group 1: 3-5 years; group 2: >6 years of clinical experience) to learn the iTero and Trios systems. All learners scanned the oral cavities of 4 human participants (participants A, B, C, and D) 10 times (T1-T10) throughout the learning sessions and the experimental dentoform model twice at the beginning and end of the 10 sessions. ST was measured, and changes in ST were compared between the 2 devices. RESULTS: The average ST for 10 sessions was greater with iTero than with Trios, but the decrease in the measured ST was greater for iTero than for Trios. Baseline and postexperience STs with iTero showed statistically significant differences, with a decrease in time related to the clinical experience levels of the dental hygienists (group 1: T2 and T4, P<.01; group 2: T2 and T5, P<.01). The experience curve with iTero was not influenced by the human participant's intraoral characteristics, and greater ST was shown for participants B and C than for participants A and D with Trios. CONCLUSIONS: Although the learning rate of iTero was rapid, the average ST for iTero was longer than Trios, and clinical experience levels influenced the operator's ability to manipulate the device. In contrast, the learning rate of Trios was slow, and measured ST was shorter than iTero, and was not influenced by clinical experience.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Conventional impression-making methods are being replaced by intraoral digital scanning. How long dental professionals take to master the new technologies is unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this human subject study was to compare the experience curves of 2 intraoral scanners among dental hygienists and determine whether repeated scanning experience could change the scan time (ST). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 29 dental hygienists with more than 3 years of working experience were recruited (group 1: 3-5 years; group 2: >6 years of clinical experience) to learn the iTero and Trios systems. All learners scanned the oral cavities of 4 humanparticipants (participants A, B, C, and D) 10 times (T1-T10) throughout the learning sessions and the experimental dentoform model twice at the beginning and end of the 10 sessions. ST was measured, and changes in ST were compared between the 2 devices. RESULTS: The average ST for 10 sessions was greater with iTero than with Trios, but the decrease in the measured ST was greater for iTero than for Trios. Baseline and postexperience STs with iTero showed statistically significant differences, with a decrease in time related to the clinical experience levels of the dental hygienists (group 1: T2 and T4, P<.01; group 2: T2 and T5, P<.01). The experience curve with iTero was not influenced by the humanparticipant's intraoral characteristics, and greater ST was shown for participants B and C than for participants A and D with Trios. CONCLUSIONS: Although the learning rate of iTero was rapid, the average ST for iTero was longer than Trios, and clinical experience levels influenced the operator's ability to manipulate the device. In contrast, the learning rate of Trios was slow, and measured ST was shorter than iTero, and was not influenced by clinical experience.
Authors: Johanna Radeke; Annike B Vogel; Falko Schmidt; Fatih Kilic; Stefan Repky; Jan Beyersmann; Bernd G Lapatki Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-11-27 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Isidora Christopoulou; Eleftherios G Kaklamanos; Miltiadis A Makrygiannakis; Ilias Bitsanis; Paula Perlea; Apostolos I Tsolakis Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Julie T Deferm; Ruud Schreurs; Frank Baan; Robin Bruggink; Matthijs A W Merkx; Tong Xi; Stefaan J Bergé; Thomas J J Maal Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-10-06 Impact factor: 3.573