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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |