The dentist will scan you now: The next generation of digital-savvy graduates
- PMID: 32815610
- DOI: 10.1111/eje.12596
The dentist will scan you now: The next generation of digital-savvy graduates
Abstract
Introduction: Undergraduate dental curriculum consisting of digital tools is essential in today's era of modern dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate final-year undergraduate dental students' perception of using intraoral scanners and the feasibility of increasing exposure to intraoral scanners in their undergraduate programme.
Materials and methods: Forty students volunteered to complete one maxillary conventional and optical impression (TRIOS 3, 3Shape A/S). Questionnaires were used to assess their familiarity, perceived confidence levels, difficulties and user-friendliness of each technique using a visual analogue scale prior to and after experiencing each impression technique.
Results: Students felt more familiar with conventional (C) than digital (D) impressions (P = .00). Their pre-confidence level was also higher with the conventional method (C: 80.9 ± 15.5; D: 39.6 ± 25.5); however, the post-confidence level significantly increased for the digital impression technique (P = .00). Participants perceived conventional technique to be easier (P = .02) and faster than optical impressions (P = .03). User-friendliness of the intraoral scanner scored moderate (67.7 ± 22.9). The difference in the mean total working time was not significant (P = .05). Forty per cent of participants indicated that they preferred using the digital impression technique.
Conclusions: Although final-year undergraduate students still perceived the conventional impression technique to be easier and faster than digital scanning, there was a significant increase in the level of confidence by this cohort after only one occasion of clinical optical impressions. Undergraduate dental students are ready to uptake new technology, and it should be strongly considered to incorporate more digital scanning during their training.
Keywords: digital impression; intraoral scan; operator preference; prosthodontics; time efficiency.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Similar articles
-
Students' perspectives on the use of digital versus conventional dental impression techniques in orthodontics.BMC Med Educ. 2019 Mar 12;19(1):81. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1512-3. BMC Med Educ. 2019. PMID: 30866910 Free PMC article.
-
Dental Students' Perceptions of Digital and Conventional Impression Techniques: A Randomized Controlled Trial.J Dent Educ. 2017 Oct;81(10):1227-1232. doi: 10.21815/JDE.017.081. J Dent Educ. 2017. PMID: 28966188 Clinical Trial.
-
Digital impression perception among dental students in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study.Eur J Dent Educ. 2024 Nov;28(4):889-896. doi: 10.1111/eje.13023. Epub 2024 Jul 16. Eur J Dent Educ. 2024. PMID: 39014875
-
Accuracy of Digital Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.Int J Prosthodont. 2020 Mar/Apr;33(2):192-201. doi: 10.11607/ijp.6468. Int J Prosthodont. 2020. PMID: 32069344
-
Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review.J Prosthodont. 2015 Jun;24(4):313-21. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12218. Epub 2014 Sep 14. J Prosthodont. 2015. PMID: 25220390 Review.
Cited by
-
Procedure Time and Students' Perception Comparing Full Arch Digital Scans with Conventional Impressions: A Cross-Over Randomized Experimental Trial.Int J Dent. 2022 Oct 17;2022:6320251. doi: 10.1155/2022/6320251. eCollection 2022. Int J Dent. 2022. PMID: 36299404 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical Evaluation of Resin Composite CAD/CAM Restorations Placed by Undergraduate Students.J Clin Med. 2021 Jul 24;10(15):3269. doi: 10.3390/jcm10153269. J Clin Med. 2021. PMID: 34362055 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical outcomes of implant-supported and tooth-supported fixed prostheses fabricated from digital versus analogue impression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Evid Based Dent. 2023 Sep;24(3):142. doi: 10.1038/s41432-023-00904-5. Epub 2023 Jun 27. Evid Based Dent. 2023. PMID: 37369705
References
REFERENCES
-
- Mormann WH. The evolution of the CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137(Suppl):7S-13S.
-
- Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont. 2015;24:313-321.
-
- Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (intraoral scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:1113-1118.
-
- Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK, Collin-Bagewitz I, Kisch J. Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial. J Prosthodont. 2016;25:282-287.
-
- Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:10.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources