Effect of Impression Technique and Operator Experience on Impression Time and Operator-Reported Outcomes
- PMID: 33533132
- DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13340
Effect of Impression Technique and Operator Experience on Impression Time and Operator-Reported Outcomes
Abstract
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.
Keywords: Impression; curriculum; dental students; intraoral scan; operator preference.
© 2021 by the American College of Prosthodontists.
Similar articles
-
An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions.J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Nov;110(5):420-3. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.06.012. Epub 2013 Aug 30. J Prosthet Dent. 2013. PMID: 23998623
-
Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Apr;153(4):534-541. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.08.017. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018. PMID: 29602345
-
Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes.BMC Oral Health. 2014 Jan 30;14:10. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-10. BMC Oral Health. 2014. PMID: 24479892 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 16:374-392. doi: 10.1111/clr.13273. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018. PMID: 30328182
-
Comparative assessment of complete-coverage, fixed tooth-supported prostheses fabricated from digital scans or conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Jan;127(1):71-79. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.017. Epub 2020 Nov 2. J Prosthet Dent. 2022. PMID: 33143901
Cited by
-
Comparison of photogrammetric imaging, intraoral scanning and conventional impression accuracy of full-arch dental implant rehabilitation: an in vitro study.BMC Oral Health. 2025 May 21;25(1):753. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06029-8. BMC Oral Health. 2025. PMID: 40399848 Free PMC article.
-
Intraoral scanners in children: evaluation of the patient perception, reliability and reproducibility, and chairside time-A systematic review.Front Pediatr. 2023 Jun 26;11:1213072. doi: 10.3389/fped.2023.1213072. eCollection 2023. Front Pediatr. 2023. PMID: 37435173 Free PMC article. Review.
-
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.
-
The Effect of Time Pressure on the Quality of Fillings and Arousal Levels of Dentists.Clin Exp Dent Res. 2025 Feb;11(1):e70106. doi: 10.1002/cre2.70106. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2025. PMID: 39992281 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Effect of gingival barrier brands on operator perception, cervical adaptation, and patient comfort during in-office tooth bleaching: a randomized clinical trial.BMC Oral Health. 2024 Jan 28;24(1):139. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-03900-y. BMC Oral Health. 2024. PMID: 38281911 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
References
-
- Nandini VV, Venkatesh KV, Nair KC: Alginate impressions: a practical perspective. J Conserv Dent 2008;11:37
-
- Van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, et al: Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PloS One 2012;7:e43312
-
- Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK, et al: Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial. J Prosthodont 2016;25:282-287
-
- Glisic O, Hoejbjerre L, Sonnesen L: A comparison of patient experience, chair-side time, accuracy of dental arch measurements and costs of acquisition of dental models. Angle Orthod 2019;89:868-875
-
- Joda T, Brägger U: Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:185-189
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources