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

Comparison of Aversion to Visual Dental Stimuli Between Patients and Dentists: A Preliminary Study

Purpose

Fearful dental patients often cite various dental instruments or procedures as triggers for their dental fear. Thus, visual dental stimuli provoke anxiety. This preliminary study aimed to assess the level of aversion to visual stimuli in dental patients and compare it with that in dentists.

Patients and Methods

A total of 43 dental patients (25 women, 18 men; average age, 29.9 ± 13.3 years; patient group) and 13 dentists (4 women, 9 men; average age, 28.2 ± 2.0 years; dentist group) were included. All participants had previously undergone dental treatment. The dental fear level was assessed using the self-reported Dental Fear Survey (DFS). Thirty-two images associated with dental treatment were prepared and classified into three categories: dental instruments, dental procedures, and the dental environment. All participants rated their level of disgust toward each image on a visual analog scale with scores ranging from 0 to 100.

Results

In the patient group, the disgust ratings for tooth extraction, dental drilling, and local anesthesia were >60, which were significantly different from those in the dentist group (Mann-Whitney U-test, p<0.001, p=0.001, and p=0.001, respectively). The ranking order of the disgust ratings for the 32 images showed significant correlation between the patient and dentist groups (Spearman correlation coefficient, r=0.80, p<0.001). In the patient group, the disgust ratings for dental impressions and the interdental brush, dental light, and dental chair were significantly correlated with DFS scores (r=0.61, p<0.001; r=0.47, p=0.001; r=0.41, p=0.006; and r=0.40, p=0.008, respectively).

Conclusion

This study revealed that patients have more negative feelings toward invasive procedures than dentists. However, a significant correlation was identified between the ranking of aversion-provoking dental stimuli by patients and dentists. Furthermore, the level of aversion to several dental-related items that do not cause pain was correlated with the dental fear level.

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.

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Single Implant-Supported Zirconia Crowns Following a Digital and Conventional Workflow: Four-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of single posterior screw-retained monolithic implant crowns following a digital and conventional workflow and to report on the survival/complication rate after a mean 4-year follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty patients with a single posterior tooth missing were rehabilitated with a bone-level implant. After a healing period of ≥3 months, they were subjected to both a digital and conventional workflow to fabricate two screw-retained monolithic implant crowns. The quantitative clinical adjustments to both crowns (intrasubject comparison) and a questionnaire were recorded at try-in. Thereafter, a crown of the digital and conventional workflows was randomly inserted. At the last follow-up, the marginal bone level (MBL), peri-implant health-related parameters (bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque, pocket probing depth (PPD)), and functional implant prosthodontic score (FIPS) were assessed. Furthermore, the implant survival and success rates and technical complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients were followed for a mean period of 4.23 ± 1.10 years. There was no significant difference between the digital and conventional workflows regarding clinical adjustments and questionnaire outcomes. More than twice as many participants recommended digital (n = 16) compared to conventional impressions (n = 7) to friends. The implant survival and success rate were 100% and 96.3%, respectively. Furthermore, two de-cementations and one fracture of the ti-base abutment occurred. There were no significant differences in BoP, plaque, and PPD metrics between the two groups. The changes in the MBL between implant crown insertion (baseline) and the last follow-up were 0.07 ± 0.19 mm and 0.34 ± 0.62 mm in the digital and conventional groups, respectively (p = 0.195). The mean overall FIPS score was 8.11 ± 1.37 (range: 5-10).

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical and radiographic outcomes of single screw-retained monolithic implant crowns were similar between both workflows after a mean of 4 years of service. The patients did not clearly prefer an impression technique for their restoration, although they would recommend the digital impression more often to friends. Thus, decision regarding clinical workflows may be based on the patient's and/or clinician's preference.

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).

Evaluation of Intraoral Full-Arch Scan versus Conventional Preliminary Impression

An accurate impression is vital during prosthodontic rehabilitation. Digital scanning has become an alternative to conventional impressions. This study compares conventional preliminary impression techniques with digital scanning, evaluating the efficiency, treatment comfort, and trueness. Impressions of 28 patients were taken using conventional and digital techniques. The efficiency of both impression techniques was evaluated by measuring the mean working time. A visual analog scale questionnaire (1-10) was used to appreciate the participants' perceptions of discomfort. Morphometric measurements, which were carried out to determine the differences between the casts, were made on the buccolingual cross sections of teeth 11 and 31 and the distolingual and mesiobuccal cusp tips of each first molar. The total treatment time was 75.5 min for conventional and 12 min for digital impressions. The patients scored a mean discomfort assessment of 6.66 for conventional and 9.03 for digital scanning. No significant differences existed between the examined areas (p < 0.05, Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests) of the digital casts obtained by both techniques. The intraoral scan can be considered as an alternative to conventional preliminary impressions for performing study model analysis during orthodontic treatment planning. The digital impression is more comfortable and accepted by the patients than the conventional impression and has a shorter working time.

Clinical aspects of digital three-dimensional intraoral scanning in orthodontics - A systematic review

Objective

This systematic review aimed to investigate the accuracy, reproducibility, scanning time, patient comfort, and operator experience of various commercially available intraoral scanners (IOS) in orthodontics.

Methods

An elaborate and extensive search of literature in the PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central databases was performed using various relevant keywords.

Results

A total of 3256 articles were obtained from all the databases, 35 studies were included. The accuracy of IOS was controversial compared to that of conventional impression techniques. Digital scanning demonstrated satisfactory to excellent reproducibility, shorter scanning time, and improved patient comfort compared with conventional techniques.

Conclusion

IOS are time-efficient, comfortable for patients, and simple to use with a learning curve for the operator. These methods are sufficiently accurate for treatment planning and aligner fabrication in orthodontics.

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.

[Research progress of digital occlusion setup in orthognathic surgery]

Objective

To review the research progress of digital occlusion setup in orthognathic surgery.

Methods

The literature related to digital occlusion setup in orthognathic surgery in recent years was consulted, and the imaging basis, methods, clinical applications as well as existing problems were reviewed.

Results

Digital occlusion setup in orthognathic surgery includes manual, semi-automatics, and fully automatic methods. The manual method mainly relies on visual cues for operation, which is difficult to ensure the best occlusion set up, though relatively flexible. The semi-automatic method utilizes the computer software for partial occlusion set up and adjustment, but the occlusion result is still largely depended by manual operation. The fully automatic method completely depends on the operation of computer software, and targeted algorithms for different occlusion reconstruction situations are needed.

Conclusion

The preliminary research results have confirmed the accuracy and reliability of digital occlusion setup in orthognathic surgery, but there are still some limitations. Further research is needed in terms of postoperative outcomes, doctor and patient acceptance, planning time and cost-effectiveness.

Digital restorative workflows for developmental dental defects in young patients: A case series

BACKGROUND

Digital technology is rapidly changing the provision of oral health care, although its adoption for the oral health care of young patients has lagged. The authors describe digitally supported treatment approaches for managing treatment of developmental dental defects in the early permanent dentition.

CASE DESCRIPTION

Four adolescent patients with amelogenesis imperfecta received transitional anterior restorations for esthetic and functional rehabilitation using a variety of digital workflows. Combinations of restoration type, materials, and fabrication methods were selected to meet the needs of each patient on the basis of their specific amelogenesis imperfecta phenotype and chief symptoms. These cases highlight the application of digital technology in pediatric and adolescent dentistry for managing the treatment of developmental dental defects.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Digitally supported restorative approaches, as described in this report, offer broad applicability of materials and techniques directed at treating the complex restorative needs of young patients in the transitional and early permanent dentition.

In-vitro accuracy of casts for orthodontic purposes obtained by a conventional and by a printer workflow

This in-vitro study was designed to investigate whether conventionally produced casts and printed casts for orthodontic purposes show comparable full-arch accuracy. To produce casts, either a conventional impression or a digital data set is needed. A fully dentate all ceramic master cast was digitized with an industrial scanner to obtain a digital reference cast [REF]. Intraoral scans [IOS] and alginate impressions were taken from the master cast so that ten printed and ten gypsum casts were obtained. The printed casts [DLP] were digitized by an industrial scanner and as well as the gypsum casts [GYPSUM]. The following absolute mean trueness evaluations by superimposition were accomplished: [REF vs. GYPSUM]; [REF vs. DLP]; [REF vs. IOS]; [IOS vs. DLP]. For precision analysis the data sets of [GYPSUM], [IOS] and [DLP] were available. The absolute mean trueness values were 68 μm ± 15 μm for [REF vs. GYPSUM], 46 μm ± 4 μm for [REF vs. DLP], 20 μm ± 2 μm for [REF vs. IOS] and 41 μm ± 4 μm for [IOS vs. DLP]. [REF vs. GYPSUM] and [REF vs. DLP], [REF vs. IOS], [REF vs. DLP] and [IOS vs. DLP] showed statistically significant differences. The precision values were 56 μm ± 17 μm for [GYPSUM], 25 μm ± 9 μm for [DLP] and 12 μm ± 2 μm for [IOS] and differed significantly among each other. In the present study the print workflow revealed superior results in comparison to the conventional workflow. Due to contrary deviations in the [REF vs. IOS] and the [IOS vs. DLP] data sets the overall trueness deviations was enhanced.

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.

The Effect of Stacking on the Accuracy of 3D-Printed Full-Arch Dental Models

The objective of this study was to assess the effect of stacking on the dimensional and full-arch accuracy of 3D-printed models, utilising a standardised assessment methodology. A previously validated methodology involving a standard tessellation language image (STL) reference model, comprising seven spheres on a horseshoe base resembling a dental arch, was used. Six 3D-designed STL models were prepared, optimised, and stacked horizontally using 3D Sprint software. The stacking file was transferred to the NextDent 5100 printer to build the physical models. To assess accuracy, a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) measured the diameter of the spheres n=210, and twenty-one vectors extended between the centres of each of the seven spheres (n = 630). When compared to the reference model, significant differences were observed for dimensional (p = 0.006) and full-arch accuracy (p = 0.006) for all stacked models. Additionally, significant differences were observed between the stacked models for the dimensional accuracy between the posterior (p = 0.015), left posterior (p = 0.005) and anteroposterior (p = 0.002). The maximum contraction was observed in the fourth stacked model, which demonstrated the highest median deviation and least precision within the full-arch (MD = 666 μm, IQR = 55 μm), left posterior (MD = 136 μm, IQR = 12 μm), posterior (MD = 177 μm, IQR = 14 μm) and anteroposterior (MD = 179 μm, IQR = 16 μm) arch segments. In general, the anterior and left posterior arch segments recorded the highest contractions with a median deviation of 34 μm and 29 μm, and precision of 32 μm and 22 μm, respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed between the stacked models in terms of dimensional accuracy that were within clinically acceptable thresholds. The greatest contraction was noted in the fourth model, displaying the least full-arch accuracy compared to the other models. Stacked, additively manufactured, full arch models are a viable alternative for diagnostic, orthodontic, and single-unit prosthodontic applications. In contrast, caution should be exercised when utilising stacked models for full arch high accuracy prosthodontic applications. Further research is needed to assess the impact of additional variables including different printers and resins.

The Potential of Digital Impression in Orthodontics

Background: Over the past 20 years, there have been many innovations in orthodontic diagnosis and therapy. Among the innovations, there is the taking of dental impressions (DIs). Dental impressions are the negative imprint of hard and soft tissues of one or both arches, and they allow a plaster model to be formed, i.e., a positive reproduction. Traditional dental impressions can be made of different materials, such as alginate, while digital impression is captured by an intra-oral scanner. Digital impression, despite the evident advantages, has not yet replaced the conventional impression. The aim of this study is to evaluate which dental impressions are the most used by dentists. For this purpose, we considered 120 questionnaires sent electronically to patients of different dental private practices from different countries, where the dentists can use both techniques. The results highlighted that the kind of impression adopted is very much influenced by the type of therapy and orthodontic devices used in the treatment. We can conclude that, despite the advent of digital technology, conventional impressions are still used for fixed devices, while digital impressions are more adopted for orthodontic customized devices and therapies with clear aligners, that are very widespread among adult patients.

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

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the accuracy of digital and conventional full-arch impressions in vivo.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA and registered at the PROSPERO (CRD42021232736). Electronic and hand searches were performed to identify in vivo studies comparing the linear or 3D accuracy of digital and conventional impressions. The risk of bias (ROB) of included studies was assessed by QUADAS-2, and the overall quality of evidence was assessed by GRADE.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria, and 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between digital and conventional impressions in the linear measurements of tooth width, anterior Bolton ratio, overall Bolton ratio, intercanine distance (ICD), and intermolar distance (IMD). The repeated measurement mean errors (RMEs) were less than 0.1 mm, the intra-examiner intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values were more than 0.9, and the inter-examiner ICC values were more than 0.87 for both impression techniques. The 3D deviation between digital and alginate impressions was 0.09 mm. The 3D precision of both impression techniques was less than 0.1 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

The trueness of digital and alginate full-arch impressions was similar, and both impression techniques showed high precision. More research was needed to compare digital impressions and other conventional impression materials.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

For patients with completely natural dentition, the digital impressions obtained directly from intraoral scanning can be considered a viable alternative to alginate impressions.

Application of the Digital Workflow in Orofacial Orthopedics and Orthodontics: Printed Appliances with Skeletal Anchorage

As digital workflows are gaining popularity, novel treatment options have also arisen in orthodontics. By using selective laser melting (SLM), highly customized 3D-printed appliances can be manufactured and combined with preformed components. When combined with temporary anchorage devices (TADs), the advantages of the two approaches can be merged, which might improve treatment efficacy, versatility, and patient comfort. This article summarizes state-of-the-art technologies and digital workflows to design and install 3D-printed skeletally anchored orthodontic appliances. The advantages and disadvantages of digital workflows are critically discussed, and examples for the clinical application of mini-implant and mini-plate borne appliances are demonstrated.

Intraoral Scanners in Orthodontics: A Critical Review

Background: The use of digital technology has exponentially increased over recent years. Intraoral scanners, especially, have gained traction within orthodontics. The objective of the present review is to investigate the available evidence to create an up-to-date presentation of various clinical aspects of intraoral scanners in orthodontics. Methods: Search without restrictions in seven databases (Pubmed, CENTRAL, Cochrane Reviews, Scopus, Web of Science, Clinical Trials, Proquest) since inception, and hand searching until October 2020, were conducted. Results: The majority of studies were either cross-over or parallel group studies. The accuracy and reproducibility of intraoral scanners, in comparison to conventional methods, were investigated in several studies, with controversial results. The duration of the procedure did not report any clear outcome in favor of any method. Patients seem to prefer intraoral scanning, even though numerous studies point out the importance of operators’ experience and skills. Conclusions: Despite the innovations that intraoral scanners have brought in orthodontic clinical practice, there are still some challenges and limitations in their use. The majority of existing limitations may be overcome with experience and good clinical skills. More high-quality studies need to be conducted so that clinicians can have a clear image of this new technology.

The Most Important Risk Factors Affecting the Physical Health of Orthodontists: A Pilot Study

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the most frequent problems in the physical health of orthodontists and to determine which factors in the working environment of dental specialists have the most important influence on the physical health of orthodontic practitioners. This survey was conducted using a questionnaire that was distributed among orthodontists and dental specialists. The questionnaire consisted of 42 questions: 36 closed-ended questions with 1 or multiple possible answer choices, and 6 open-ended questions. The survey was carried out online and responses were collected anonymously. The study included 266 questionnaires completed by orthodontists and dental practitioners with a mean age of 34.5 ± 10.1 years. The results showed that 71% of orthodontists and 90% of dental practitioners experienced different types of pain during their workday and after work. The most common health problems among orthodontists were shoulder and neck pain. Orthodontists’ health status was better than dentists’. Usually, orthodontists experience shoulder and neck pain. The factors that helped orthodontists avoid health disorders were: the use of individually adjustable backrests and saddle-type chairs, assuming a neutral sitting position, keeping work equipment as close as possible, and breaks in between patients during work.

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/).

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.

Operators matter - An assessment of the expectations, perceptions, and performance of dentists, postgraduate students, and dental prosthetist students using intraoral scanning

OBJECTIVE

to assess the expectations, perceptions and performance of different operators with varying backgrounds and training in the use of full-arch intraoral scanning (IOS).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Dentists (DENT), postgraduate dental students (DPG), and student prosthetists (PROS) were invited to join an IOS training workshop. Participants completed a satisfactory scan of a mannikin-mounted typodont with the total scanning time (TST) recorded. They also completed anonymised pre and post-training questionnaires covering their background, and IOS expectations and experience. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal Wallis, and chi-square tests. Open-ended questions were analysed manually and using Leximancer.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven participants were recruited: 10 DENT; 10 PROS; and 7 DPG. Positive expectations of IOS was reported by 93 % of participants. Combined TST was 285 ± 83 s, with the PROS TST significantly longer (p < 0.05, 337 ± 79 s). Further training need was reported by 60 % of PROS and 50 % of DENT versus 14 % of DPG. Positive IOS experience was reported by 96 % of participants, 74 % perceived it to be accurate, and 63 % found it easy to use. Eighty-five percent of all participants stated that cost would influence their decision of adopting IOS in their practice.

CONCLUSION

Expectations and perceptions of IOS were overwhelmingly positive, irrespective of operator background and experience. Scanning performance and training needs depended on the operator's background. Cost of IOS remains a barrier to acquiring the technology.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

IOS training must be customised to accommodate the needs of different operators. The cost of IOS needs revision to improve its accessibility.

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

BACKGROUND

The comfortness and effectiveness of digital and conventional impression methods in children have not yet been compared.

AIM

To assess the digital and conventional impression methods in children in terms of comfort, preference, and the time required to take impressions.

DESIGN

Digital impressions were taken by using an intraoral scanner, and conventional impressions were taken by using alginate from 28 patients by the same operator. In each impression-taking-process, comfort was assessed by both the children and the clinician, and the chairside times were written. Student's t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analyses, and P < .05 was considered to be significant.

RESULTS

The digital impression was considered to be more comfortable in the assessments by both the children and the clinician (P < .001). The total time the digital impression took was 465.89 ± 76.71 second(s) while that of the conventional impression was 450.25 ± 64.08 s when the chairside times of the two impression methods were compared. There was no statistically significant difference (P = .41).

CONCLUSION

The digital impression method compared with the conventional impression method was found to be both more comfortable and preferable by the children, but there was no difference in terms of the time required to take impressions.