Digital versus conventional impression method in children: Comfort, preference and time

Variation of OXIS contact areas in primary molars among 3-6-year-old children with intraoral digital scanning

PURPOSE

To determine the variation of OXIS contact areas in primary molars using digital impressions generated from an intraoral scanner (IOS).

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was carried out on 214 caries-free posterior quadrants of 80 children (38 males and 42 females) aged 3-6 years. Calibration of taking digital impressions with the IOS procedure was performed initially through scanning of ten quadrants of children to provide a learning environment to the examiner. The digital impressions were then exported, and the type of interproximal contact areas present between the distal surface of the primary first molar and the mesial surface of the primary second molar were identified according to the OXIS classification. The prevalence of the types of OXIS contact areas was expressed in the form of numbers and percentages. The chi-square test was applied to investigate the variability among the arches and to understand the association of OXIS contact areas across age, gender, and arches.

RESULTS

The most common contact area type observed was I-type (59.8%), followed by S-type (15.4%), X-type (12.6%), and O-type (12.2%). The I-type contact area was most frequently seen in both males (51.6%) and females (65.5%), while the S-type contact area in males (14.7%) and X-type contact area in females (8.4% each) were the least frequent with no statistical significance between genders (p > 0.05). All three age groups studied showed the highest prevalence of the I-type contact area, which increased with an increase in age (p < 0.05). The inter-arch comparison showed a significant result in terms of the X-type contact area on the right side, and O-type, X-type, and I-type contact areas on the left side, while no statistical difference was seen in the intra-arch comparison for all contact types.

CONCLUSION

I-type contact areas were the most prevalent across the arches, age groups and genders.

Digital workflow to produce esthetic space maintainers for growing patients

Digital workflows have been used to enhance the predictability of oral rehabilitations. However, techniques to digitally design and manufacture esthetic space maintainers by following a prosthetically driven treatment plan for young patients are lacking. This technique report describes a full digital workflow to produce computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) esthetic space maintainers by using intraoral scans, a dental CAD software program, and a milling machine. CAD-CAM space maintainers can be provided for young patients with satisfactory patient compliance and with minimal chairside adjustment.

Comparative Analysis of the Comfort of Children and Adolescents in Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impression Methods: A Crossover Randomized Trial

The aim of this study was to evaluate the comfort of children and adolescents with conventional full-arch dental impression methods compared to two intraoral scanners (iTeroTM and PrimescanTM).

METHODS

A monocentric, analytical, controlled crossover study was designed to compare conventional impression and digital impression with two intraoral scanners (iTeroTM and PrimescanTM) in children and teenagers. Patient comfort was evaluated using a 100 mm VAS scale adapted to Spanish and for children. A descriptive and analytical statistical method was conducted with a confidence level of 95% (p ≤ 0.05) and asymptotic or bilateral significance.

RESULTS

A total of 51 subjects were enrolled in the study (mean age = 12.35 years). Although the group of 10-14-year-olds was the most numerous, gender was equally distributed among the age groups. None of the variables on the VAS scale showed differences between the gender categories (p > 0.05). There were differences (p < 0.05) with respect to the age categories, as the middle adolescent group showed the worst general perception and total comfort during the conventional impression. Statistically significant differences were found between all VAS scale items and the three impression methods (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The digital impression technique is superior in terms of total comfort to the conventional alginate impression in children and adolescents.

Navigating Complexity: A Case Report on a Comprehensive Dental Management Approach to Amelogenesis Imperfecta and Gingival Fibromatosis Syndrome

This clinical case report details the comprehensive diagnosis and dental management of a seven-year-old female patient diagnosed with the rare genetic disorder, amelogenesis imperfecta and gingival fibromatosis syndrome (AIGFS). The case initially presented as congenital adrenal hyperplasia and amelogenesis imperfecta, but further genetic analysis revealed the involvement of AIGFS due to a mutation in the FAM20A gene. Diagnosis, confirmed through whole exome sequencing, clinical assessment, and laboratory tests, necessitated a multidisciplinary approach to address the treatment of such cases. The article underscores the critical importance of diagnosing and managing dental manifestations in pediatric patients with complex genetic conditions, highlighting the difficulties of treating AIGFS in mixed dentition. This case also highlights the indispensable role of pediatric dentists in diagnosing and treating these cases, ultimately improving the quality of life for individuals with AIGFS.

Comparative evaluation of the clinical success of 3D-printed space maintainers and band-loop space maintainers

BACKGROUND

Exploring the integration of 3D-printing technology in space maintainer (SM) manufacturing could offer innovative solutions and insights for enhancing SMs.

AIM

To compare the clinical success, retention, and periodontal effect of traditional band-loop (TBL) SMs with 3D-printed SMs.

DESIGN

Seventy children (mean age: 6.99 ± 1.18) were divided into two groups. Laser sintering (LS) group (n = 34): Patients were scanned with an intraoral scanner. SMs were produced with LS 3D-printing method from a titanium-based metal powder. T group (n = 36): Impressions were taken with alginate. SMs were produced by adjusting the bands and soldering the wires on the model. The retention and effects on oral hygiene of the SMs were evaluated at the sixth month. Preference for impression technique was assessed by a five-question survey.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight percent of T SMs and 66% of LS SMs failed (p = .007). The mean survival time was significantly higher in the T group (p = .035). No difference was found between the initial and control full-mouth Gingival Index (GI) and Plaque Index (PI) values of the two groups. Both groups had increased GI/PI values in abutment teeth. Patients in the LS group interpreted their impression experience more positively.

CONCLUSION

It is important to provide oral hygiene education before applying fixed SMs and utilize more digital workflow in paediatric dentistry.

Reliability of mixed dentition space analysis using a digital model obtained from an optical impression: a preliminary study

OBJECTIVE

While mixed dentition space analysis is a common practice in pediatric dentistry, digital models created using an intraoral scanner are not as widely used in clinical settings. This preliminary study used a very small sample size with one reference model and aimed to (1) compare the accuracy of mixed dentition space analysis using a digital model obtained from an optical impression with that of conventional plaster model-based analysis and (2) assess inter-examiner differences.

RESULTS

The space required for the mandibular permanent canine and premolars and arch length discrepancy were calculated using each model. The largest significant difference between plaster- and digital model-based analyses was identified when the right arch length discrepancy was considered (-0.49 mm; 95% confidence interval: -0.95-0.03); however, the value was considered clinically insignificant. Significant inter-examiner differences were observed for six items of the plaster model; however, no such differences were observed when using the digital model. In conclusion, digital model space analysis may have the same level of accuracy as conventional plaster model analysis and likely results in smaller inter-examiner differences than plaster model analysis.

Comparison between digital and conventional impression techniques in children on preference, time and comfort: A crossover randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the conventional alginate impression and the digital impression taken with an intraoral scanner of both dental arches in children, using a randomized crossover design.

TRIAL DESIGN

This is a monocentric, controlled, superiority, randomized, crossover, open study.

METHODS

Twenty-four orthodontic patients between 6 and 11 years of age underwent intraoral scanning (TRIOS 3; 3Shape) and alginate impression of both dental arches with an interval of 1 week between the two procedures. Participants were recruited from September 2021 to March 2022 and the study was completed in April 2022. Impression time for the two procedures was compared. Patients were asked which one of the two impression procedures they preferred. A questionnaire including Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for comfort, pain, gag reflex and difficulty in breathing, was administered to the patients.

RESULTS

Eighteen out of 24 patients preferred digital impression (75%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 55% to 88%; P = .014). Scanning time was significantly shorter than alginate impression time (difference -118 seconds; 95% CI: -138 to -99; P < .001). Comfort was significantly higher for digital impression (difference 1.7; 95% CI: 0.5 to 2.8; P = .007). There was no difference in pain (difference -0.2; 95% CI: -1.5 to 1.0; P = .686) while gag reflex and breathing difficulties were smaller for digital impression (gag reflex difference -2.5; 95% CI: -4.0 to -0.9; P = .004 and breathing difficulties difference -1.5; 95% CI: -2.5 to -0.5; P = -.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Digital impression is preferred by children aged 6-11 years and it is significantly faster in acquisition time than conventional alginate impression.

REGISTRATION

The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with registration number NCT04220957 on January 7th, 2020 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04220957).

Intraoral scanners in children: evaluation of the patient perception, reliability and reproducibility, and chairside time-A systematic review

Purpose

The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the perception of the patient, the chairside time, and the reliability and/or reproducibility of intraoral scanners for full arch in pediatric patients.

Methods

A data search was performed in four databases (Medline-Pubmed, Scopus, ProQuest and Web of Science) in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statements. Studies were classified in three categories (patient perception, scanning or impression time and reliability and/or reproducibility). The resources, the data extraction and the quality assessment were carried out independently by two operators. The variables recorded were population characteristics, material and methods aspects and included country, study design and main conclusion. A quality assessment of the selected studies was performed with QUADAS-2 tool, and Kappa-Cohen Index was calculated to analyze examiner agreement.

Results

The initial search obtained 681 publications, and finally four studies matching inclusion criteria were selected. The distribution of the studies in the categories was three for the analysis of the patient's perception and scanning or impression time; and two items to assess the reliability and/or reproducibility of intraoral scans. All included studies have a repeated measures-transversal design. The sample size ranged between 26 and 59 children with a mean age. The intraoral scanners evaluated were Lava C.O.S, Cerec Omnicam, TRIOS Classic, TRIOS 3-Cart and TRIOS Ortho. The quality assessment of the studies using QUADAS-2 tool revealed a low risk of bias while evaluating patient perception, but an unclear risk of bias in the analysis of accuracy or chairside time. In relation to the applicability concerns, the patient selection was of high risk of bias. All studies agreed that the patient perception and comfort is better with intraoral scanners in comparison with the conventional method. The accuracy or reliability of the digital procedure is not clear, being clinically acceptable. In relation with the chairside time, it depends on the intraoral scanner, with contradictory data in the different analyzed studies.

Conclusion

The use of intraoral scanners in children is a favorable option, finding a significantly higher patient perception and comfort with intraoral scanners compared to the conventional impression method. The evidence for reliability or reproducibility is not strong to date, however, the differences between the intraoral measurements and the digital models would be clinically acceptable.

What to Prefer in Patients with Multibracket Appliances? Digital vs. Conventional Full-Arch Impressions-A Reference Aid-Based In Vivo Study

This study aimed to investigate the transfer accuracy and required time for digital full-arch impressions obtained from intraoral scanners (IOSs) versus conventional alginate impressions (CAIs) in patients with multibracket appliances (MBA). Thirty patients with buccal MBAs (metal brackets, archwire removed) were examined using an established reference aid method. Impression-taking using four IOSs (Primescan, Trios 4, Medit i700, Emerald S) and one CAI with subsequent plaster casting were conducted. One-hundred-twenty (n = 30 × 4) scans were analyzed with 3D software (GOM Inspect) and 30 (n = 30 × 1) casts were assessed using a coordinate measurement machine. Six distances and six angles were measured and compared to the reference aid values (ANOVA; p < 0.05). Except for the intermolar distance, transfer accuracy was significantly higher with IOSs than with CAIs (p < 0.05). No such difference was found regarding the six angles. In patients with MBAs, digital impression-taking using IOSs can be recommended. For all measured variables except one, the transfer accuracy of IOSs was better than or at least equivalent to the data from CAIs. In addition, significantly (p < 0.001) less time was necessary for all IOSs in comparison to CAIs plus plaster casting.

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

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the influence of fixed orthodontic appliances (FOAs) on the transfer accuracy of full-arch impressions by five intraoral scanners (IOSs): CS3600, Primescan, Trios 4, Medit i500, Emerald S, and one conventional alginate impression (CAI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To compare the data with the actual model situation, an established reference aid-based method was applied. A test model with human teeth was used and modified for each testing group, resulting in five different settings: natural teeth (group A), metal brackets without/with wire (groups B/C), ceramic brackets without/with wire (groups D/E). A total of 300 (n = 12 × 5 × 5) scan datasets of IOSs were analyzed using a 3D software (GOM Inspect) and 60 (n = 12 × 5) plaster casts of CAI were measured with a coordinate measurement machine. The deviations between the reference aid and the impressions were determined.

RESULTS

For all groups with brackets (B to E), IOSs showed a higher transfer accuracy compared to CAI, even for long-span distances. However, some significant differences between the IOSs were observed (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this in vitro study, IOSs can be recommended for impressions with and without FOAs, even if CAI showed the smallest average deviations in settings without FOAs.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

IOSs are widely used in orthodontics and the current study demonstrated that their use enables fast impression taking even in settings with fixed orthodontic appliances. In addition, for these settings, the transfer accuracy is higher than with conventional alginate impressions. Nevertheless, a re-investigation in a clinical setting should be performed to verify the current in vitro findings.

Trueness of full-arch dental models obtained by digital and conventional impression techniques: an in vivo study

The aim of this study was to compare the trueness of complete- and partial-arch impressions obtained using conventional impression materials and intraoral scanners in vivo. Full-arch impressions were taken using polyether and polyvinylsiloxane. Gypsum casts were digitized using a laboratory scanner (IM, AF). Casts obtained from polyether impressions were also scanned using an industrial blue light scanner to construct 3D reference models. Intraoral scanning was performed using CEREC Omnicam (CO) and Trios 3 (TR). Surface matching software (Atos Professional) enabled to determine the mean deviations (mean distances) from the reference casts. Statistically significant discrepancies were calculated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The mean distance for trueness ranged from 0.005 mm (TR) to 0.023 mm (IM) for the full arch, from 0.001 mm (CO) to 0.068 mm (IM) for the anterior segment, and from 0.019 mm (AF) to 0.042 mm (IM) for the posterior segment. Comparing the anterior vs. the posterior segment, significantly less deviations were observed for anterior with CO (p < 0.001) and TR (p < 0.001). Full-arch comparisons revealed significant differences between AF vs. IM (p = 0.014), IM vs. CO (p = 0.002), and IM vs. TR (p = 0.001). Full-arch trueness was comparable when using Affinis and the two intraoral scanners CEREC Omnicam and Trios 3. The digital impression devices yielded higher local deviations within the complete arch. Digital impressions of the complete arch are a suitable and reliable alternative to conventional impressions. However, they should be used with caution in the posterior region.Trial registration: Registration number at the German Clinical Trial Register (04.02.2022): DRKS00027988 ( https://trialsearch.who.int/ ).

Conventional vs. Digital Impression: Comfort Level, Preferences, and Acceptance of Treatment Time among Orthodontic Patients

Background:

The escalated technological development and the emergence of computer-aided manufacturing have improved dental restoration accuracy and the accurate manufacturing of prosthetic models.

Objective:

The study aims to assess patients' comfort level, preferences, and acceptance of treatment time for conventional impression technique vs. digital impression among orthodontic patients treated with clear aligners.

Methods:

A cross-sectional survey study was conducted between February 2019 and April 2019 by recruiting 50 patients from the orthodontic clinics at multiple centers. A self-administered questionnaire was designed to evaluate patients' perceptions in each impression technique group. Descriptive statistics and paired sample t-test were applied with statistical significance set at P<0.05.

Results:

The results showed that the impression technique bothered patients as they experienced helplessness during treatment. There was a significant impact on patients' perception of the treatment, whereas there was an insignificant association between comfort level and treatment of the patients.

Conclusion:

The technicalities of conventional impression were not applied to the intraoral scanners, making these scanners superior and more user-friendly. Digital impression techniques were also preferred by the participants regarding their time, taste/smell, and sensitivity.

Comparison of fit accuracy between conventional and CAD/CAM-fabricated band-loop space maintainers

AIM

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the band fit of metallic band-loop space maintainers fabricated by conventional and 3D printing technologies for clinical applications.

DESIGN

Sixteen digital intraoral impressions were selected, and resin models were printed with a 3D printer. Forty band-loop space maintainers were fabricated (20 each for both the conventional and digital groups). To evaluate the band fit of conventional and CAD/CAM-fabricated space maintainers, cement space was visualized with low-viscosity condensation silicone material on resin models. Digital evaluation was carried out using dual scan method by superimposing two scans of resin models covered with or without a silicone layer on the abutment tooth. The mean quadratic deviation (root mean square, RMS) was calculated. The RMS values between the groups were evaluated with Student's t test. Statistical significance was set at p < .05.

RESULTS

No statistical significance was found between the conventional and digital groups (p = .56).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, the band fit of conventional and CAD/CAM-fabricated space maintainers had no difference. Future research into CAD/CAM-fabricated appliances from different perspectives such as fracture strength and patient comfort is warranted.

Fully digital workflow for the fabrication of a tooth-colored space maintainer for a young patient

OBJECTIVES

Preventive orthodontic therapy with a band and loop is recommended to reduce the prevalence and severity of malocclusion on premature loss of a primary molar. However, when young patients are less cooperative and have a severe gag reflex, using traditional impression methods may be challenging. The use of a conventional metal space maintainer (SM) requires manual laboratory procedures and does not provide optimal esthetics. Moreover, gingival submergence of the wire and gingivitis caused by metal structures may occur. This clinical report describes a complete digital workflow for the fabrication of a zirconia SM to overcome these limitations.

CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS

An 8-year-old boy with a band and loop SM for a missing primary mandibular right second molar presented with plaque accumulation around the band, soft tissue impingement by the loop, and loss of cement. A reverse band and loop SM had been proposed for the restoration of the primary mandibular right first molar. After conservative tooth preparation, a digital impression procedure was performed. A customized band and loop SM was designed using a computer-aided design software and milled out of the zirconia block. After sintering, the SM was luted with adhesive resin cement.

CONCLUSIONS

Using an intraoral scanner, computer-aided design, and computer-aided manufacturing technology, the limitations of traditional impression procedures were overcome, and a zirconia SM with mechanical, biological, and esthetic advantages was fabricated.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Advancements in dental materials and digital technologies allow for the efficient fabrication of a tooth-colored SM with an improved patient satisfaction and reduced human error.

Digitainers-Digital Space Maintainers: A Review

To summarize the limitations of commonly used space maintainers (SMs) and provide an insight into the field's technological advances to overcome them, this review was conducted. With the rapid advancement of digital technologies, there is always something new to learn while also redefining the current fads. Digital workflow is not a new concept in dentistry, but it has only just begun to be used in pediatric dentistry. The curiosity to explore has led to the development of digital devices as SMs. They appear potential for usage in children because of their impressive advantages of precision, comfort, and a time-saving approach. This workflow helps lessen fear and improve children's cooperation and enthusiasm for dental appointments by cutting down on chairside time and shortening procedures.

How to cite this article: Dhanotra KGS, Bhatia R. Digitainers—Digital Space Maintainers: A Review. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(S-1):S69–S75.

Determination of proper band size for stainless steel crowns of primary second molars: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:

Fixed space maintainers are often used following primary tooth loss. In this process, selection of a proper band size for stainless steel crowns (SSCs) is often performed by trial and error, which increases the chairside time and risk of contamination of the tried bands with saliva, blood, and gingival crevicular fluid, necessitating their subsequent sterilization. This study is aimed at determining the proper size of prefabricated bands for all SSCs of primary second molars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

In this cross-sectional study, seven examiners, including three orthodontists and four pediatric dentists attempted to select the proper band size for 24 primary second molar SSCs (3M). They selected the proper band size for each size of SSC six times in three sessions. The significance of all selected choices was carried out using the test of proportions.

RESULTS:

The most commonly selected bands for EU2, EU3, EU4, EU5, EU6, and EU7 SSCs were sizes 31+, 32+, 34, 35+, 37, and 38, respectively, and the proper bands for EL2, EL3, EL4, EL5, EL6, and EL7 SSCs were sizes 30, 31+, 32+, 33+, 35 and 36+, respectively. The difference in the frequency ratio of different choices for all sizes of SSCs was significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION:

The current study determined the proper band size for all SSCs of primary maxillary and mandibular second molars. This information can help dental clinicians in selecting the proper band size for SSCs without trial and error.

Patient-reported experiences and preferences with intraoral scanners: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Intraoral scanners have become an increasingly popular alternative to conventional impression methods. Although their accuracy and validity have been examined thoroughly, patient-reported information including experiences, preferences, and satisfaction has not yet been investigated in a systematic way.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review is to investigate the available data and appraise the evidence on patient-reported experiences and preferences following impression taking with intraoral scanners.

SEARCH METHODS

Unrestricted search of seven databases (Pubmed, CENTRAL, Cochrane reviews, Scopus, Web of Science, Clinical Trials, and ProQuest) and grey literature were conducted until October 2020. Detailed search strategies were developed for each database.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies involving individuals of any gender or age, subjected to full arch impression taking with conventional and intraoral scanning methods were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following the retrieval and selection of the studies, data extraction was performed. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools.

RESULTS

From the initially identified records, nine studies [eight crossover (two of them randomized) and one parallel group] were eventually included in the present systematic review. Randomized studies were shown, overall, to have some concerns regarding bias, whereas the non-randomized studies were found to be at serious risk, mainly because of bias due to confounding. All studies demonstrated some benefit in favour of intraoral scanning compared with conventional techniques. More positive feelings were generally observed with the intraoral scanners regarding smell, taste, sound, vibration, nausea, and queasiness. Overall, comfort assessment mostly favoured digital methods. No differences were found concerning the level of anxiety between the two methods. Among the included studies, time perception was a parameter leading to contradictory results.

LIMITATIONS

These emerge due to the nature and characteristics of the information retrieved from the included studies. The validation of the instruments to capture patient-reported outcomes needs to be further elaborated.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoral scanners seem to be a promising new asset in the orthodontic office from the perspective of individuals' experiences and preferences. Nevertheless, to investigate patient-reported outcomes correctly, further high-quality studies are required in the future.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ayug2/).

A Comparison of Accuracy of Different Dental Restorative Materials between Intraoral Scanning and Conventional Impression-Taking: An In Vitro Study

The properties of underlying substrates influence the quality of an intraoral scan, but few studies have compared the outcomes using common restorative materials. In this study, we aimed to compare the accuracy of digital and conventional impressions recorded for four different dental materials as the substrates. Experimental crowns were produced with a metallic surface (gold or cobalt-chromium alloy (Co-Cr)) or without a metallic surface (zirconia or PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate)). A conventional impression was made in the conventional group (CON group), and gypsum models were subsequently scanned with a tabletop scanner. An intraoral scanner was used to scan the crowns either after applying a powder spray to reduce the surface reflectivity (IOS-P group) or without the powder spray (IOS group). The scans were assessed in three dimensions for precision and trueness. The accuracy did not differ between the CON and IOS groups for the non-metallic crowns. However, it was statistically different for the Co-Cr metallic crown, reducing trueness observed between groups as CON > IOS > IOS-P. The study evidences the differences in outer surface accuracy observed with a change in the substrate material to be imaged using an oral scanner and with the impression method. These findings suggest that the restoration material present in the oral cavity should be considered when selecting an impression-taking method.

Intraoral Digital Impression for Speech Aid/Obturator in Children: Report of 2 Cases

Cleft patients may develop an abnormal opening (fistula) between the oral and the nasal cavities. Surgical repair minimizes the adverse effect on speech and feeding. However, an obturator prosthesis is a nonsurgical approach to help close the communication. The purpose of the case report presented is to show the clinical use of an intraoral digital impression in the fabrication of obturator/speech aid appliances in children with cleft lip and palate deformity. Minimal adjustments were needed, and patients and caregivers responded positively. Prostheses demonstrated good stability and retention at delivery. The use of digital technology seems to have several benefits as an alternative method for capturing impressions, especially in young children with cleft lip and palate deformity.

Effect of Impression Technique and Operator Experience on Impression Time and Operator-Reported Outcomes

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of impression technique (conventional preliminary alginate and digital scan) and operator experience in impression making (experienced in digital and conventional, experienced in conventional and inexperienced in digital, and inexperienced in conventional and digital) on impression time, satisfaction and stress levels, and the preference of the operators.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One patient was assigned for each of the 60 operators, who were experienced in impression techniques at different levels (Group 1: experienced in conventional and digital, Group 2: experienced in conventional and inexperienced in digital, Group 3: inexperienced in conventional and digital). They made conventional impressions (irreversible hydrocolloid) and digital scans (Trios 3) from the same patient. The impression times were recorded at each step (patient registration, maxillary arch, mandibular arch, and bite registration) and in total. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used for the operator satisfaction for applicability, comfort, and hygiene; the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory form (STAI-TX1) was used for stress, and a questionnaire was completed to measure the operator's impression preference. The data were analyzed with a 2-way ANOVA and Chi-square test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

A significant interaction was found between the operator experience in impression making and the impression technique on time for maxillary and mandibular arch impressions and total time (p ≤ 0.002). Operator experience and impression technique interaction had a significant effect on comfort and average VAS scores (p ≤ 0.016). Whereas, no significant effect of this interaction was found on stress (p ≥ 0.195). Operator experience in impression making had a significant effect on applicability (p < 0.001), and the impression technique had a significant effect on hygiene VAS scores (p < 0.001). Operators in Group 1 and Group 3 preferred the digital scans, however, operators in Group 2 had no preference (p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

Operator experience in impression making and impression technique had varying effects on clinician's impression time, comfort, applicability, hygiene, and preference. Operators needed less time for the impressions they were experienced with. Operator stress level was not affected by the operator experience in impression making and the impression technique. Dental students and operators experienced in both techniques were satisfied with the digital scans and they preferred digital scans. Operators experienced with conventional impressions were satisfied with conventional impressions but didn't have a preference for the impression type.

Using digital impressions to fabricate space maintainers: A case report

Digital impressions improve patient experience and compliance. Digital impressions enable dental offices to collaborate and work with distant dental laboratories and specialists with ease. Although the initial cost of acquiring an intraoral scanner is significant, its use has the potential to reduce the cost per procedure.