Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2014 Jan 30:14:10.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-10.

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

Emir Yuzbasioglu  1 , Hanefi Kurt, Rana Turunc, Halenur Bilir
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

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

Emir Yuzbasioglu et al. BMC Oral Health. .

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare two impression techniques from the perspective of patient preferences and treatment comfort.

Methods: Twenty-four (12 male, 12 female) subjects who had no previous experience with either conventional or digital impression participated in this study. Conventional impressions of maxillary and mandibular dental arches were taken with a polyether impression material (Impregum, 3 M ESPE), and bite registrations were made with polysiloxane bite registration material (Futar D, Kettenbach). Two weeks later, digital impressions and bite scans were performed using an intra-oral scanner (CEREC Omnicam, Sirona). Immediately after the impressions were made, the subjects' attitudes, preferences and perceptions towards impression techniques were evaluated using a standardized questionnaire. The perceived source of stress was evaluated using the State-Trait Anxiety Scale. Processing steps of the impression techniques (tray selection, working time etc.) were recorded in seconds. Statistical analyses were performed with the Wilcoxon Rank test, and p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results: There were significant differences among the groups (p < 0.05) in terms of total working time and processing steps. Patients stated that digital impressions were more comfortable than conventional techniques.

Conclusions: Digital impressions resulted in a more time-efficient technique than conventional impressions. Patients preferred the digital impression technique rather than conventional techniques.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Conventional impression technique. Conventional impression technique. A) Adhesive application, B) Impression tray loading, C) Upper and lower arches impression, D) Bite registration.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Digital impression technique. A) Entering patient information, B) Laboratory prescription, C) Upper and lower arches scanning, D) Bite scanning.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. De La Cruz JE, Funkenbusch PD, Ercoli C, Moss ME, Graser GN, Tallents RH. Verification jig for implant supported prosthesis: a comparison of standard impressions with verification jigs made of different materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88:329–336. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2002.128070. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mormann WH, Brandestini M, Lutz F. The Cerec system: computer-assisted preparation of direct ceramic inlays in 1 setting. Quintessenz. 1987;38:457–470. - PubMed
    1. Luthardt R, Weber A, Rudolph H, Schone C, Quaas S, Walter M. Design and production of dental prosthetic restorations: basic research on dental CAD/CAM technology. Int J Comput Dent. 2002;5:165–176. - PubMed
    1. Otto T, Schneider D. Long-term clinical results of chairside CEREC CAD/CAM inlays and onlays: a case series. Int J Prosthodont. 2008;21(1):53–59. - PubMed
    1. Wiedhahn K, Kerschbaum T, Fasbinder DF. Clinical long-term results with 617 CEREC veneers: a nine-year report. Int J Comput Dent. 2005;8:233–246. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources