Premium
Intraoral Digital Impression Technique Compared to Conventional Impression Technique. A Randomized Clinical Trial
Author(s) -
Gjelvold Björn,
Chrcanovic Bruno Ramos,
Korduner EvaKarin,
CollinBagewitz Ingrid,
Kisch Jenö
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of prosthodontics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.902
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1532-849X
pISSN - 1059-941X
DOI - 10.1111/jopr.12410
Subject(s) - impression , visual analogue scale , medicine , randomized controlled trial , dentistry , orthodontics , computer science , surgery , world wide web
Purpose To compare digital and conventional impression techniques in a randomized clinical trial; specifically, procedure times, patient‐centered outcomes, and clinical evaluation of the restorations. Materials and Methods Forty‐two patients in need of tooth‐supported single crowns and/or fixed partial prostheses up to six units were randomly allocated to one of the impression techniques. The procedure times, dentists’ and patients’ assessments using a visual analog scale (VAS), and clinical evaluation of the restorations were compared between the two groups. Results The mean total procedure times for digital and conventional impression technique were 14:33 ± 5:27 and 20:42 ± 5:42, respectively ( p < 0.0001). Mean impression times were 7:33 ± 3.37 and 11:33 ± 1.56, respectively ( p < 0.0001). Mean VAS scores for the dentist's assessment of difficulty (0 to 100; very difficult = 100) were 24.00 ± 18.02 and 48.02 ± 21.21, respectively ( p < 0.0001). Mean VAS scores for the patients’ assessment of discomfort (0 to 100; very discomforting = 100) was 6.50 ± 5.87 and 44.86 ± 27.13, respectively ( p < 0.0001). Occlusal contacts showed a better result for the digital technique. Conclusion The results of this study demonstrated that the digital technique was more efficient and convenient than the conventional impression technique.