Hakan Yilmaz1, Fatma Asli Konca2, Merve Nur Aydin3. 1. Department of Orthodontics, Yeditepe University Faculty of Dentistry, İstanbul, Turkey. 2. Department of Orthodontics, Biruni University Faculty of Dentistry, İstanbul, Turkey. 3. Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Istanbul Okan University Faculty of Dentistry, İstanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare digital and conventional impressions in terms of impression time, and comfort, anxiety and preference of the patients. METHODS: Digital scans (Trios 3 Cart) and conventional impressions (irreversible hydrocolloid material, hand-mixed) were randomly performed on 39 patients by a single experienced operator in 14-21 day intervals (cross-over design). Impression time, comfort score with visual analog scale (VAS), anxiety level with State-Trait Anxiety Scale, and preference with a questionnaire were recorded. Two techniques were compared with the independent t-test in terms of time, comfort, and anxiety. Patient'-operator' assessment and time-comfort relationship were calculated using Pearson correlation test. RESULTS: No statistical difference was found between the two impression techniques in terms of time (P = .231). The digital technique was found to be more comfortable than the conventional technique in both operators' and patients' comfort scores (P < .001). There was no statistical difference between two techniques with regards to anxiety (P = .668). Patients' and operators' comfort scores showed a strong correlation (P < .001), but no correlation was found between comfort and time (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Digital scan and conventional impression were similar in terms of impression time, and anxiety of patients. Conversely, patients were more satisfied with the digital technique and preferred it.
OBJECTIVE: To compare digital and conventional impressions in terms of impression time, and comfort, anxiety and preference of the patients. METHODS: Digital scans (Trios 3 Cart) and conventional impressions (irreversible hydrocolloid material, hand-mixed) were randomly performed on 39 patients by a single experienced operator in 14-21 day intervals (cross-over design). Impression time, comfort score with visual analog scale (VAS), anxiety level with State-Trait Anxiety Scale, and preference with a questionnaire were recorded. Two techniques were compared with the independent t-test in terms of time, comfort, and anxiety. Patient'-operator' assessment and time-comfort relationship were calculated using Pearson correlation test. RESULTS: No statistical difference was found between the two impression techniques in terms of time (P = .231). The digital technique was found to be more comfortable than the conventional technique in both operators' and patients' comfort scores (P < .001). There was no statistical difference between two techniques with regards to anxiety (P = .668). Patients' and operators' comfort scores showed a strong correlation (P < .001), but no correlation was found between comfort and time (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Digital scan and conventional impression were similar in terms of impression time, and anxiety of patients. Conversely, patients were more satisfied with the digital technique and preferred it.
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