Abstract

Introduction Intraoral scanners allow direct images of oral situation, with fewer steps than conventional impressions. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital impressions, traditional impressions, and digitalization of full-arch gypsum models, to evaluate timing of different methods and finally to study perception of patients about conventional and digital impression techniques. Methods Dental arches of fourteen patients were evaluated by alginate impression, titanium dioxide powder-free intraoral scanning (Trios, 3Shape), and digitalization obtained from gypsum models using the same scanner. Conventional and digital techniques were evaluated through measurements (lower and upper arch anteroposterior length, lower and upper intercanine distance, and lower and upper intermolar distance) with a caliber for analogic models and using a computer software for digital models (Ortho Analyzer, Great Lakes Orthodontics). In addition, chairside and processing times were recorded. Finally, each patient completed a VAS questionnaire to evaluate comfort. Statistical analyses were performed with ANOVA and Tukey tests for accuracy measurements and paired t-test for times and VAS scores. Significance was predetermined at P < 0.05. Results The measurements obtained with intraoral scanning, gypsum models after conventional impression, and digitalized gypsum models were not significantly different. Both chairside and processing times of digital scanning were shorter than the traditional method. VAS reporting patients comfort were significantly higher when evaluating digital impression. Conclusions Intraoral scanners used for orthodontic applications provide useful data in clinical practice, comparable to conventional impression. This technology is more time efficient than traditional impression and comfortable for patients. Further evolution with more accurate and faster scanners could in future replace traditional impression methods.

Highlights

  • Intraoral scanners allow direct images of oral situation, with fewer steps than conventional impressions

  • Previous authors evaluated the validity of alginate impressions [7] and digitalization of gypsum or plaster models [8]

  • No significant difference was reported among various groups (P > 0.05)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Intraoral scanners allow direct images of oral situation, with fewer steps than conventional impressions. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital impressions, traditional impressions, and digitalization of full-arch gypsum models, to evaluate timing of different methods and to study perception of patients about conventional and digital impression techniques. The measurements obtained with intraoral scanning, gypsum models after conventional impression, and digitalized gypsum models were not significantly different Both chairside and processing times of digital scanning were shorter than the traditional method. Intraoral scanners used for orthodontic applications provide useful data in clinical practice, comparable to conventional impression This technology is more time efficient than traditional impression and comfortable for patients. The use of the intraoral scanner allows the operator to work immediately on the image obtained by completely eliminating the cleansing, disinfection, and casting steps of the traditional alginate method [10]. The development of the scanners could potentially replace in the future either

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call