An Updated Comparison of Current Impression Techniques Regarding Time, Comfort, Anxiety, and Preference: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

Abstract

To compare digital and conventional impressions in terms of impression time, and comfort, anxiety and preference of the patients. Digital scans (Trios 3 Cart) and conventional impressions (irreversible hydrocolloid material, hand-mixed) were randomly performed on 39 patients by a single experienced operator in 14-21 day intervals (cross-over design). Impression time, comfort score with visual analog scale (VAS), anxiety level with State-Trait Anxiety Scale, and preference with a questionnaire were recorded. Two techniques were compared with the independent t-test in terms of time, comfort, and anxiety. Patient'-operator' assessment and time-comfort relationship were calculated using Pearson correlation test. No statistical difference was found between the two impression techniques in terms of time (P = .231). The digital technique was found to be more comfortable than the conventional technique in both operators' and patients' comfort scores (P < .001). There was no statistical difference between two techniques with regards to anxiety (P = .668). Patients' and operators' comfort scores showed a strong correlation (P < .001), but no correlation was found between comfort and time (P > .05). Digital scan and conventional impression were similar in terms of impression time, and anxiety of patients. Conversely, patients were more satisfied with the digital technique and preferred it.