Abstract
To compare operating time and patient perception of conventional impression (CI) taking and intraoral scanning (IOS) for manufacture of a tooth-supported crown. A total of 19 patients needing indirect full-coverage restorations fitting the requirements for a split-mouth design were recruited. Each patient received two lithium disilicate crowns, one manufactured from CI taking and one from IOS. Both teeth were prepared following the manufacturers' recommendations. For both impression techniques, two retraction cords soaked in 15% ferric sulphate were used for tissue management. CIs were taken in a full-arch metallic tray using one-step, two-viscosity technique with polyvinyl siloxane silicone. The operating time for each step of the two impression methods was registered. Patient perception associated with each method was scored using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS), with 100 indicating maximum discomfort. Median total operating time for CI taking was 15:47 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 15:18 to 17:30), and for IOS was 5:05 minutes (IQR 4:35 to 5:23). The median VAS score for patient perception was 73 (IQR 16 to 89) for CI taking and 6 (IQR 2 to 9) for IOS. The differences between the two groups were statistically significant (P < .05) for both parameters. IOS was less time consuming than CI taking, and patient perception was in favor of IOS.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
