Irena Sailer1, Sven Mühlemann2, Vincent Fehmer3, Christoph H F Hämmerle4, Goran I Benic2. 1. Professor, Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Clinics for Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: irena.sailer@unige.ch. 2. Senior Teaching and Research Assistant, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Master Dental Technician, Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Clinics for Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 4. Professor, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Clinical trials are needed to evaluate digital and conventional technologies for providing fixed partial dentures. PURPOSE: The purpose of the first part of this clinical study was to test whether complete-arch digital scans were similar to or better than complete-arch conventional impressions regarding time efficiency and participant and clinician perceptions. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Ten participants in need of a posterior tooth-supported 3-unit fixed partial denture were included. Three intraoral digital scanners and subsequent workflows (Lava C.O.S.; 3M [Lava], iTero; Align Technology Inc [iTero], Cerec Bluecam; Dentsply Sirona [Cerec]) were compared with the conventional impression method using polyether (Permadyne; 3M) and the conventional workflow. A computer-generated randomization list was used to determine the sequence of the tested impression procedures for each participant. The time needed for the impression procedures, including the occlusal registration, was assessed. In addition, the participant and clinician perceptions of the comfort and difficulty of the impression were rated by means of visual analog scales. Data were analyzed with the nonparametric paired Wilcoxon test together with an appropriate Bonferroni correction to detect differences among the impression systems (α=.05). RESULTS: The total time for the complete-arch impressions, including the preparation (powdering) and the occlusal registration, was shorter for the conventional impression than for the digital scans (Lava 1091 ±523 seconds, iTero 1313 ±418 seconds, Cerec 1702 ±558 seconds, conventional 658 ±181 seconds). The difference was statistically significant for 2 of the 3 digital scanners (iTero P=.001, Cerec P<.001). The clinicians preferred the conventional impression to the digital scans. Of the scanning systems, the system without the need for powdering was preferred to the systems with powdering. No impression method was clearly preferred over others by the participants. CONCLUSIONS: For complete-arch impressions, the conventional impression procedures were objectively less time consuming and subjectively preferred by both clinicians and participants over digital scan procedures.
RCT Entities:
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Clinical trials are needed to evaluate digital and conventional technologies for providing fixed partial dentures. PURPOSE: The purpose of the first part of this clinical study was to test whether complete-arch digital scans were similar to or better than complete-arch conventional impressions regarding time efficiency and participant and clinician perceptions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten participants in need of a posterior tooth-supported 3-unit fixed partial denture were included. Three intraoral digital scanners and subsequent workflows (Lava C.O.S.; 3M [Lava], iTero; Align Technology Inc [iTero], Cerec Bluecam; Dentsply Sirona [Cerec]) were compared with the conventional impression method using polyether (Permadyne; 3M) and the conventional workflow. A computer-generated randomization list was used to determine the sequence of the tested impression procedures for each participant. The time needed for the impression procedures, including the occlusal registration, was assessed. In addition, the participant and clinician perceptions of the comfort and difficulty of the impression were rated by means of visual analog scales. Data were analyzed with the nonparametric paired Wilcoxon test together with an appropriate Bonferroni correction to detect differences among the impression systems (α=.05). RESULTS: The total time for the complete-arch impressions, including the preparation (powdering) and the occlusal registration, was shorter for the conventional impression than for the digital scans (Lava 1091 ±523 seconds, iTero 1313 ±418 seconds, Cerec 1702 ±558 seconds, conventional 658 ±181 seconds). The difference was statistically significant for 2 of the 3 digital scanners (iTero P=.001, Cerec P<.001). The clinicians preferred the conventional impression to the digital scans. Of the scanning systems, the system without the need for powdering was preferred to the systems with powdering. No impression method was clearly preferred over others by the participants. CONCLUSIONS: For complete-arch impressions, the conventional impression procedures were objectively less time consuming and subjectively preferred by both clinicians and participants over digital scan procedures.
Authors: Luca Lavorgna; Gabriele Cervino; Luca Fiorillo; Giovanni Di Leo; Giuseppe Troiano; Marco Ortensi; Luigi Galantucci; Marco Cicciù Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 3.390