Comparison of Traditional Impression and 3D Ear Scanning Techniques, Earmold Comfort, and Audiology Clinical Implications: A Pilot Study.

Abstract

This study investigated clinical aspects of the traditional ear impression and 3D ear scanning techniques. Adult earmold-users and non-users participated in this study. The earmold-users also participated in the earmold comfort comparison study by wearing earmolds from both techniques, one set a week according to a randomized sequence. Multiple clinical aspects of both techniques according to the participants and audiology professionals were recorded. Results revealed a preference for the 3D-scanning technique, which was perceived as more comfortable although both techniques were perceived as safe. Although the earmolds might have issues from both techniques, there was no significant difference in the perception of earmolds. Experience with the specific technique can affect the responses from the professionals. Compared to the traditional technique, 3D-scans had higher fixed but less variable costs and procedure times. A special clinical case was included and indicated that 3D-scans could be an option for specific patients. This study led to a better understanding of the two techniques clinically. With increasing involvement of new technology and more young professionals joining the profession of audiology, 3D ear scanning could be a viable consideration for audiology practices.