Conventional vs. Digital dental impression: practitioner’s and patient’s perspective-a pilot study

Abstract

Dental cast is an indispensable part of a routine diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. Conventional impression materials, e.g. alginate and polyvinyl siloxane are used for capturing intraoral details and subsequent dental casts pouring. Intraoral scanners (IOS) were introduced in dentistry in the early 1980s and became a valid alternative to those procedures. IOS are fast, accurate and more pleasant for a patient than conventional impression techniques, making it necessary to introduce that technique in Dental School’s curriculum. Eighteen dental students and recent graduates performed both techniques on each other and filled two two-part questionnaires (from patient’s and practitioner’s perspective; before and after impression-taking) to reveal their preferences and expectations from both techniques. The results showed a statistically significant difference in time needed for digital and conventional impression, with digital being faster. After the scanning, all participants answered that digital impression technique would spare more time in their office. Majority of participants thought that digital techniques would completely replace conventional techniques during their lifetime and that attitude hasn’t changed afterwards. Results of this pilot study showed participants’ inclination towards new impression techniques and need for their implementation in Dental School’s curriculum.