Clinical Working Time and Patient Satisfaction Outcomes: A Crossover Trial Comparing Digital and Conventional Implant Impression Techniques. | ||||
| Ain Shams Dental Journal | ||||
| Volume 35, Issue 3, September 2024, Page 277-283 PDF (1.07 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original articles | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/asdj.2024.296747.1316 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
wafaa Youssef Elashry   1; Mohamed Maamoun Elsheikh 2; Ali Mohamed Elsheikh1
| ||||
| 1Department of removable prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry ,Tanta University | ||||
| 2Department of removable prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Aim: To compare patient-reported outcomes and record time efficiency for intraoral digital and analogue implant impressions made in bilateral distal extension cases with 3 units implant supported restorations. Materials and Methods: The digital impression using a TRIOS 3Shape intraoral scanner IOS as well as classical polyvinyl-siloxane impression material (PVS) were both performed on eight patients in a crossover study, for bilateral distal extension cases with 3-units screw- retained implant-supported restorations each side of the oral cavity. Visual analogue scale (VAS) questionnaires were used to assess the degree of convenience-related aspects and patients’ satisfaction. Furthermore, the working time for each impression procedure was documented separately. The data were obtained and analyzed statistically by independent t-test using IBM SPSS 20 at a 5% level of significance. Results: All participants would choose the digital pathway if given the choice between the two approaches based on a VAS score between 0 and 100.Secondly, there was a noticeable increase in intraoral scanning (IOS) speed at 6.45 min (SD± 0.94) in contrast to the conventional analogue method with 22.15 min (SD± 1.59) P <0.05. Conclusion: According to the results of the study, both impression techniques captured the 3D implant placement satisfactorily for all study participants. However, the intraoral scanning impression was superior to the traditional impression in terms of patient outcomes and clinical working time. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Impression efficiency; Implant impression techniques; Direct digital workflow; Patient preference; Patient satisfaction | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 246 PDF Download: 160 |
||||
