Literature DB >> 27476358

Treatment comfort, time perception, and preference for conventional and digital impression techniques: A comparative study in young patients.

Lukasz Burhardt1, Christos Livas2, Wouter Kerdijk3, Wicher Joerd van der Meer2, Yijin Ren4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this crossover study was to assess perceptions and preferences for impression techniques in young orthodontic patients receiving alginate and 2 different digital impressions.
METHODS: Thirty-eight subjects aged 10 to 17 years requiring impressions for orthodontic treatment were randomly allocated to 3 groups that differed in the order that an alginate impressions and 2 different intraoral scanning procedures were administered. After each procedure, the patients were asked to score their perceptions on a 5-point Likert scale for gag reflex, queasiness, difficulty to breathe, uncomfortable feeling, perception of the scanning time, state of anxiety, and use of a powder, and to select the preferred impression system. Chairside time and maximal mouth opening were also registered.
RESULTS: More queasiness (P = 0.00) and discomfort (P = 0.02) during alginate impression taking of the maxilla were perceived compared with the scans with the CEREC Omnicam (Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany). There were no significant differences in perceptions between the alginate impressions and the Lava C.O.S. (3M ESPE, St Paul, Minn) and between the 2 scanners. Chairside times for the alginate impressions (9.7 ± 1.8 minutes) and the CEREC Omnicam (10.7 ± 1.8 minutes) were significantly lower (P <0.001) than for the Lava C.O.S. (17.8 ± 4.0 minutes). Digital impressions were favored by 51% of the subjects, whereas 29% chose alginate impressions, and 20% had no preference. Regardless of the significant differences in the registered times among the 3 impression-taking methods, the distributions of the Likert scores of time perception and maximal mouth opening were similar in all 3 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Young orthodontic patients preferred the digital impression techniques over the alginate method, although alginate impressions required the shortest chairside time.
Copyright © 2016 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27476358     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.12.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  14 in total

1.  A comparison of patient experience, chair-side time, accuracy of dental arch measurements and costs of acquisition of dental models.

Authors:  Olja Glisic; Louise Hoejbjerre; Liselotte Sonnesen
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Dentine sensitivity caused by illumination of intraoral scanner and light curing unit.

Authors:  Prawnapa Natongkham; Pattaranat Banthitkhunanon; Sitthichai Wanachantararak
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2022-05-01

3.  An Updated Comparison of Current Impression Techniques Regarding Time, Comfort, Anxiety, and Preference: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

Authors:  Hakan Yilmaz; Fatma Asli Konca; Merve Nur Aydin
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2021-12

Review 4.  Intraoral Scanner Technologies: A Review to Make a Successful Impression.

Authors:  Raphaël Richert; Alexis Goujat; Laurent Venet; Gilbert Viguie; Stéphane Viennot; Philip Robinson; Jean-Christophe Farges; Michel Fages; Maxime Ducret
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 2.682

Review 5.  Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature.

Authors:  Francesco Mangano; Andrea Gandolfi; Giuseppe Luongo; Silvia Logozzo
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 2.757

6.  Conventional Vs Digital Impressions: Acceptability, Treatment Comfort and Stress Among Young Orthodontic Patients.

Authors:  Alessandro Mangano; Matteo Beretta; Giuseppe Luongo; Carlo Mangano; Francesco Mangano
Journal:  Open Dent J       Date:  2018-01-31

7.  Computerized Casts for Orthodontic Purpose Using Powder-Free Intraoral Scanners: Accuracy, Execution Time, and Patient Feedback.

Authors:  Maria Francesca Sfondrini; Paola Gandini; Maurizio Malfatto; Francesco Di Corato; Federico Trovati; Andrea Scribante
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Digital Workflow for Indirect Bonding with 2D Lingual Brackets: A Case Report and Procedure Description.

Authors:  Federico Rosti; Maria Francesca Sfondrini; Davide Bressani; Marina Consuelo Vitale; Paola Gandini; Andrea Scribante
Journal:  Case Rep Dent       Date:  2019-04-28

9.  A new method to measure the accuracy of intraoral scanners along the complete dental arch: A pilot study.

Authors:  Mikel Iturrate; Erlantz Lizundia; Xabier Amezua; Eneko Solaberrieta
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2019-12-18       Impact factor: 1.904

Review 10.  Accuracy of an intraoral digital impression: A review.

Authors:  Kanchan Aswani; Sattyam Wankhade; Arun Khalikar; Suryakant Deogade
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2020-01-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.