Cargando…

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. Impressio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jánosi, Kinga Mária, Cerghizan, Diana, Mártha, Krisztina Ildikó, Elekes, Éva, Szakács, Brigitta, Elekes, Zoltán, Kovács, Alpár, Szász, Andrea, Mureșan, Izabella, Hănțoiu, Liana Georgiana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10487891/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37685574
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12175508
_version_ 1785103348957970432
author Jánosi, Kinga Mária
Cerghizan, Diana
Mártha, Krisztina Ildikó
Elekes, Éva
Szakács, Brigitta
Elekes, Zoltán
Kovács, Alpár
Szász, Andrea
Mureșan, Izabella
Hănțoiu, Liana Georgiana
author_facet Jánosi, Kinga Mária
Cerghizan, Diana
Mártha, Krisztina Ildikó
Elekes, Éva
Szakács, Brigitta
Elekes, Zoltán
Kovács, Alpár
Szász, Andrea
Mureșan, Izabella
Hănțoiu, Liana Georgiana
author_sort Jánosi, Kinga Mária
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10487891
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104878912023-09-09 Evaluation of Intraoral Full-Arch Scan versus Conventional Preliminary Impression Jánosi, Kinga Mária Cerghizan, Diana Mártha, Krisztina Ildikó Elekes, Éva Szakács, Brigitta Elekes, Zoltán Kovács, Alpár Szász, Andrea Mureșan, Izabella Hănțoiu, Liana Georgiana J Clin Med Article 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. MDPI 2023-08-24 /pmc/articles/PMC10487891/ /pubmed/37685574 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12175508 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Jánosi, Kinga Mária
Cerghizan, Diana
Mártha, Krisztina Ildikó
Elekes, Éva
Szakács, Brigitta
Elekes, Zoltán
Kovács, Alpár
Szász, Andrea
Mureșan, Izabella
Hănțoiu, Liana Georgiana
Evaluation of Intraoral Full-Arch Scan versus Conventional Preliminary Impression
title Evaluation of Intraoral Full-Arch Scan versus Conventional Preliminary Impression
title_full Evaluation of Intraoral Full-Arch Scan versus Conventional Preliminary Impression
title_fullStr Evaluation of Intraoral Full-Arch Scan versus Conventional Preliminary Impression
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Intraoral Full-Arch Scan versus Conventional Preliminary Impression
title_short Evaluation of Intraoral Full-Arch Scan versus Conventional Preliminary Impression
title_sort evaluation of intraoral full-arch scan versus conventional preliminary impression
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10487891/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37685574
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12175508
work_keys_str_mv AT janosikingamaria evaluationofintraoralfullarchscanversusconventionalpreliminaryimpression
AT cerghizandiana evaluationofintraoralfullarchscanversusconventionalpreliminaryimpression
AT marthakrisztinaildiko evaluationofintraoralfullarchscanversusconventionalpreliminaryimpression
AT elekeseva evaluationofintraoralfullarchscanversusconventionalpreliminaryimpression
AT szakacsbrigitta evaluationofintraoralfullarchscanversusconventionalpreliminaryimpression
AT elekeszoltan evaluationofintraoralfullarchscanversusconventionalpreliminaryimpression
AT kovacsalpar evaluationofintraoralfullarchscanversusconventionalpreliminaryimpression
AT szaszandrea evaluationofintraoralfullarchscanversusconventionalpreliminaryimpression
AT muresanizabella evaluationofintraoralfullarchscanversusconventionalpreliminaryimpression
AT hantoiulianageorgiana evaluationofintraoralfullarchscanversusconventionalpreliminaryimpression