Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Volumn 28, Issue 10, 2017, Pages 1318-1323

  Joda, Tim ^a   Lenherr, Patrik ^b   Dedem, Philipp ^b   Kovaltschuk, Irina ^b   Bragger, Urs ^a   Zitzmann, Nicola U ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

dental implant; digital impression; intraoral scan; operator preference; prosthodontics; randomized controlled trial (RCT); time efficiency

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL IMPRESSION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TIME FACTOR; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; DENTAL IMPRESSION TECHNIQUE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84985905659     PISSN: 09057161     EISSN: 16000501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12982     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Abduo, J. & Lyons, K. (2013) Rationale for the use of cad/cam technology in implant prosthodontics. International Journal of Dentistry, doi: 10.1155/2013/768121 [Epub ahead of print].
2. Chochlidakis, K. M., Papaspyridakos, P., Geminiani, A., Chen, C. J., Feng, I. J. & Ercoli, C. (2016) Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 116: 184–190.
3. Christensen, G.J. (2009) Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. Journal of the American Dental Association 140: 1301–1304.
4. Flores-Mir, C., Palmer, N.G., Northcott, H.C., Khurshed, F. & Major, P.W. (2006) Perceptions and attitudes of canadian dentists toward digital and electronic technologies. Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 72: 243.
5. Gjelvold, B., Chrcanovic, B.R., Korduner, E.K., Collin-Bagewitz, I. & Kisch, J. (2016) Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Prosthodontics 25: 282–287.
6. Joda, T. & Bragger, U. (2014) Complete digital workflow for the production of implant-supported single-unit monolithic crowns. Clinical Oral Implants Research 25: 1304–1306.
7. Joda, T. & Bragger, U. (2015a) Digital vs. Conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clinical Oral Implants Research 26: 1430–1435.
8. Joda, T. & Bragger, U. (2015b) Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research 27: e185–189.
9. Joda, T. & Bragger, U. (2015c) Time-efficiency analysis comparing digital and conventional workflows for implant crowns: a prospective clinical crossover trial. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 30: 1047–1053.
10. Joda, T. & Bragger, U. (2016) Time-efficiency analysis of the treatment with monolithic implant crowns in a digital workflow: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research 27: 1401–1406.
11. Joda, T. & Gallucci, G. O. (2014) The virtual patient in dental medicine. Clinical Oral Implants Research 26: 725–726.
12. Kapos, T. & Evans, C.A. (2014) CAD/CAM technology for implant abutments, crowns and superstructures. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 29 (Suppl): 117–136.
13. Lee, S.J. & Gallucci, G.O. (2012) Digital vs. Conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clinical Oral Implants Research 24: 111–115.
14. Marti, A. M., Harris, B. T., Metz, M. J., Morton, D., Scarfe, W. C., Metz, C. J. & Lin, W. S. (2016) Comparison of digital scanning and polyvinyl siloxane impression techniques by dental students: instructional efficiency and attitudes towards technology. European Journal of Dental Education 21: 200–205.
15. van Noort, R. (2012) The future of dental devices is digital. Dental Materials 28: 3–12.
16. Patel, N. (2010) Integrating three-dimensional digital technologies for comprehensive implant dentistry. Journal of the American Dental Association 141(Suppl. 2): 20S–24S.
17. Patzelt, S.B., Lamprinos, C., Stampf, S. & Att, W. (2014) The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. Journal of the American Dental Association 145: 542–551.
18. Schepke, U., Meijer, H.J., Kerdijk, W. & Cune, M.S. (2015) Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: operating time and patient preference. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 114: e401.
19. Wismeijer, D., Mans, R., van Genuchten, M. & Reijers, H.A. (2014) Patients’ preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (intraoral scan) of dental implants. Clinical Oral Implants Research 25: 1113–1118.
20. Yuzbasioglu, E., Kurt, H., Turunc, R. & Bilir, H. (2014) Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BioMed Central Oral Health 14: 10.
21. van der Zande, M.M., Gorter, R.C. & Wismeijer, D. (2013) Dental practitioners and a digital future: an initial exploration of barriers and incentives to adopting digital technologies. British Dental Journal 215: E21.