Comparison of digital scanning and polyvinyl siloxane impression techniques by dental students: instructional efficiency and attitudes towards technology

European Journal of Dental Education

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 200-205

  Marti, A M ^a   Harris, B T ^a   Metz, M J ^a   Morton, D ^b   Scarfe, W C ^a   Metz, C J ^c   Lin, W S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY   (United States)

^c University of Louisville School of Medicine   (United States)

Author keywords

attitudes towards technology; conventional impression; digital scanning; fixed prosthodontics; instructional efficiency

Indexed keywords

CAREER; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CURRICULUM; DENTAL STUDENT; EXERCISE; EXPECTATION; EXPOSURE; HUMAN; PERCEPTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; STUDENT T TEST; TEACHING; TOOTH; VIDEORECORDING; VOLUNTEER; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; DENTAL EDUCATION; DENTAL IMPRESSION; DENTAL PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; MANIKIN; TOOTH CROWN;

BIOMEDICAL AND DENTAL MATERIALS; POLYVINYL DERIVATIVE; SILOXANE; VINYL POLYSILOXANE;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; CROWNS; DENTAL IMPRESSION MATERIALS; DENTAL IMPRESSION TECHNIQUE; DENTAL MODELS; EDUCATION, DENTAL; HUMANS; MANIKINS; POLYVINYLS; SILOXANES; STUDENTS, DENTAL; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TOOTH;

EID: 84960158645     PISSN: 13965883     EISSN: 16000579     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/eje.12201     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Poticny DJ, Klim J. CAD/CAM In-Office Technology: innovations after 25 years for predictable, esthetic outcomes. J Am Dent Assoc 2010: 141: 5S–9S.
2. Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S. Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 2005: 8: 283–294.
3. Fasbinder D. Using digital technology to enhance restorative dentistry. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2012: 33: 666–672.
4. Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont 2015: 24: 313–321.
5. Oosterink FMD, De Jongh A, Hoogstraten J. Prevalence of dental fear and phobia relative to other fear and phobia subtypes. Eur J Oral Sci 2009: 117: 135–143.
6. Locker D, Shapiro D, Liddell A. Negative dental experiences and their relationship to dental Anxiety. Community Dent Health 1996: 13: 86–92.
7. Maggirias J, Locker D. Five-Year incidence of dental anxiety in an adult population. Community Dent Health 2002: 19: 173–179.
8. Akarslan ZZ, Yildirim Biçer AZ. Influence of gag reflex on dental attendance, dental anxiety, self-reported temporomandibular disorders and prosthetic restorations. J Oral Rehabil 2013: 40: 932–939.
9. Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients’ preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014: 25: 1113–1118.
10. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014: 14: 1–7.
11. Farah JW, Brown L. Integrating the 3M ESPE LAVA Chairside Oral Scanner C.O.S into daily clinical practice. Dent Adv 2009: 12: 1–4.
12. Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus G, Pradíes G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015: 17 (Suppl. 1): e54–64.
13. Galhano GA, Pellizzer EP, Mazaro JV. Optical impression systems for CAD/CAM restorations. J Craniofac Surg 2012: 23: e575–e579.
14. Nassar U, Oko A, Adeeb S, El-Rich M, Flores-Mir C. An in vitro study on the dimensional stability of a vinyl polyether silicone impression material over a prolonged storage period. J Prosthet Dent 2013: 109: 172–178.
15. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional vs digital impressions—an in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011: 14: 11–21.
16. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2014: 109: 121–128.
17. Kim SY, Kim MJ, Han JS, Yeo IS, Lim YJ, Kwon HB. Accuracy of dies captured by an intraoral digital impression system using parallel confocal imaging. Int J Prosthodont 2013: 26: 161–163.
18. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2013: 17: 1759–1764.
19. Neves FD, Prado CJ, Prudente MS, et al. Micro-computed tomography evaluation of marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated by using chairside CAD/CAM systems or the heat-pressing technique. J Prosthet Dent 2014: 112: 1134–1140.
20. Anadioti E, Aquilino SA, Qian F. 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. J Prosthodont 2014: 23: 610–617.
21. Tidehag P, Ottosson K, Sjogren G. Accuracy of ceramic restorations made using an in-office optical scanning technique: an in vitro study. Oper Dent 2014: 39: 308–316.
22. Commission on Dental Accreditation. Standard 2-Education Programs, Standard 2-23 Accreditation Standards For Dental Education Programs. Chicago, IL: American Dental Association 2015: 30
23. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013: 24: 111–115.
24. Lee SJ, MacArthur RX IV, Gallucci GO. An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2013: 110: 420–423.