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

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research Vol. 28; no. 10; pp. 1318 - 1323
• Main Authors: Joda, Tim, Lenherr, Patrik, Dedem, Philipp, Kovaltschuk, Irina, Bragger, Urs, Zitzmann, Nicola U.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Denmark Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01-10-2017
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Arches; Canine teeth; Clinical trials; Computer simulation; Customization; dental implant; Dental Impression Technique; Dental materials; Dentistry; Dentists; digital impression; Efficiency; Elastomers; Female; Group dynamics; Humans; intraoral scan; Male; Maxilla; Middle Aged; operator preference; Preferences; prosthodontics; Randomization; randomized controlled trial (RCT); Scanning; Students; time efficiency; Time Factors; Young Adult; intraoral scan; digital impression; randomized controlled trial (RCT); dental implant; time efficiency; operator preference; prosthodontics
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.12982

Objectives
The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to analyze implant impression techniques applying intraoral scanning (IOS) and the conventional method according to time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference.
Material and Methods
One hundred participants (n = 100) with diverse levels of dental experience were included and randomly assigned to Group A performing digital scanning (TRIOS Pod) first or Group B conducting conventional impression (open tray with elastomer) first, while the second method was performed consecutively. A customized maxillary model with a bone‐level‐type implant in the right canine position (FDI‐position 13) was mounted on a phantom training unit realizing a standardized situation for all participants. Outcome parameter was time efficiency, and potential influence of clinical experience, operator's perception of level of difficulty, applicability of each method, and subjective preferences were analyzed with Wilcoxon –Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests.
Results
Mean total work time varied between 5.01 ± 1.56 min (students) and 4.53 ± 1.34 min (dentists) for IOS, and between 12.03 ± 2.00 min (students) and 10.09 ± 1.15 min (dentists) for conventional impressions with significant differences between the two methods. Neither assignment to Group A or B, nor gender nor number of impression‐taking procedures did influence working time. Difficulty and applicability of IOS was perceived more favorable compared to conventional impressions, and effectiveness of IOS was rated better by the majority of students (88%) and dentists (64%). While 76% of the students preferred IOS, 48% of the dentists were favoring conventional impressions, and 26% each IOS and either technique.
Conclusions
For single‐implant sites, the quadrant‐like intraoral scanning (IOS) was more time efficient than the conventional full‐arch impression technique in a phantom head simulating standardized optimal conditions. A high level of acceptance for IOS was observed among students and dentists.