Literature DB >> 31259615

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

Olja Glisic, Louise Hoejbjerre, Liselotte Sonnesen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare patient experience, chairside time, dental arch distances, and costs of dental models derived from intraoral scans and alginate impressions in pre-orthodontic children and young adolescents.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-nine children and young adolescents (9-15 years, mean: 12.70 years) had an intraoral scan and an alginate impression prior to orthodontic treatment. During the procedures, chairside time was registered in minutes and patient experience was assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale questionnaire. Four maxillary dental arch distances were measured on digital models, on plaster casts, and directly in the mouth (intraoral). The cost of each procedure was presented graphically. Differences between the two procedures were tested by paired t-test and general linear model.
RESULTS: Patient experience was statistically better during intraoral scan compared with alginate impression regarding comfort, gag reflex, breathing, smell/sound, taste/vibration, and all statements concerning anxiety (P < .05). No significant difference in chairside time between the two procedures was found. No statistically significant differences in dental arch distances between digital models and plaster casts were found, but dental arch distances measured intraorally differed significantly from both digital models and plaster casts (P < .05). Cost calculation showed that the digital procedure was 10.7 times more expensive than the conventional procedure initially and, that after 3.6 years, the two procedures were equal in cost.
CONCLUSIONS: Children preferred intraoral scan rather than alginate impression. Chairside time was equal for the two procedures as were the measurements of maxillary dental arch distances. The two procedures were equal in cost at 3.6 years.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Alginate impression; Chairside time; Children; Cost calculation; Experience; Intraoral scan

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31259615      PMCID: PMC8109162          DOI: 10.2319/020619-84.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  23 in total

1.  Reliability of the visual analog scale in children with acute pain in the emergency department.

Authors:  Benoit Bailey; Jocelyn Gravel; Raoul Daoust
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2012-02-04       Impact factor: 6.961

2.  Intraoral digital scanners.

Authors:  Neal D Kravitz; Christian Groth; Perry E Jones; John W Graham; W Ronald Redmond
Journal:  J Clin Orthod       Date:  2014-06

Review 3.  Empirical evidence of the relationship between parental and child dental fear: a structured review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Markus Themessl-Huber; Ruth Freeman; Gerry Humphris; Steve MacGillivray; Nathalie Terzi
Journal:  Int J Paediatr Dent       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.455

4.  Orthodontic screening and third party financing.

Authors:  B Solow
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements.

Authors:  W J Houston
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1983-05

6.  Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance.

Authors:  Thorsten Grünheid; Shawn D McCarthy; Brent E Larson
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 2.650

7.  Impact of procedures during prosthodontic treatment on patients' perceived burdens.

Authors:  Tim Hacker; Guido Heydecke; Daniel R Reissmann
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  The Faces Pain Scale-Revised: toward a common metric in pediatric pain measurement.

Authors:  C L Hicks; C L von Baeyer; P A Spafford; I van Korlaar; B Goodenough
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 6.961

9.  Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction.

Authors:  Jennifer A Burzynski; Allen R Firestone; F Michael Beck; Henry W Fields; Toru Deguchi
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.650

10.  Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Emir Yuzbasioglu; Hanefi Kurt; Rana Turunc; Halenur Bilir
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2014-01-30       Impact factor: 2.757

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Digital versus conventional full-arch impressions in linear and 3D accuracy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo studies.

Authors:  Lin Kong; Yabing Li; Zhijian Liu
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 3.606

2.  The transfer accuracy of digital and conventional full-arch impressions influenced by fixed orthodontic appliances: a reference aid-based in vitro study.

Authors:  Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz; Katharina Klaus; Alexander Schmidt; Bernd Wöstmann; Marco Mersmann; Sabine Ruf; Niko Christian Bock
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2022-09-15       Impact factor: 3.606

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 Scanners in Orthodontics: A Critical Review.

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

5.  The Potential of Digital Impression in Orthodontics.

Authors:  Sabina Saccomanno; Stefano Saran; Valeria Vanella; Rodolfo Francesco Mastrapasqua; Luca Raffaelli; Luca Levrini
Journal:  Dent J (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-08
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.