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
. 2021 Oct;30(8):676-683.
doi: 10.1111/jopr.13340. Epub 2021 Mar 24.

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

Affiliations

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

Hakan Yilmaz et al. J Prosthodont. 2021 Oct.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Nandini VV, Venkatesh KV, Nair KC: Alginate impressions: a practical perspective. J Conserv Dent 2008;11:37
    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. 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

LinkOut - more resources