24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review : Digital vs. Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner.

          Digital impression devices are used alternatively to conventional impression techniques and materials. The aims of this study were to evaluate the precision of digital intraoral scanning under clinical conditions (iTero; Align Technologies, San Jose, Calif) and to compare it with the precision of extraoral digitization.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes

            Background The purpose of this study was to compare two impression techniques from the perspective of patient preferences and treatment comfort. Methods Twenty-four (12 male, 12 female) subjects who had no previous experience with either conventional or digital impression participated in this study. Conventional impressions of maxillary and mandibular dental arches were taken with a polyether impression material (Impregum, 3 M ESPE), and bite registrations were made with polysiloxane bite registration material (Futar D, Kettenbach). Two weeks later, digital impressions and bite scans were performed using an intra-oral scanner (CEREC Omnicam, Sirona). Immediately after the impressions were made, the subjects’ attitudes, preferences and perceptions towards impression techniques were evaluated using a standardized questionnaire. The perceived source of stress was evaluated using the State-Trait Anxiety Scale. Processing steps of the impression techniques (tray selection, working time etc.) were recorded in seconds. Statistical analyses were performed with the Wilcoxon Rank test, and p < 0.05 was considered significant. Results There were significant differences among the groups (p < 0.05) in terms of total working time and processing steps. Patients stated that digital impressions were more comfortable than conventional techniques. Conclusions Digital impressions resulted in a more time-efficient technique than conventional impressions. Patients preferred the digital impression technique rather than conventional techniques.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review.

              With the techniques of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) being applied in the field of prosthodontics, a concept of intraoral digital impressions was put forward in the early 1980s. It has drawn comprehensive attention from dentists and has been used for dental prosthesis fabrication in a number of cases. This new digital impression technique is expected to bring about absolute digitization to the mode of prosthodontics. A few published articles have indicated that dental prostheses fabricated from intraoral digital impressions have exhibited remarkable advantages over those from conventional impressions in several respects. The present review discusses intraoral digital impression techniques in terms of the following aspects: (1) categories and principles of intraoral digital impression devices currently available; (2) operating characteristics of the devices; and (3) comparison of the manipulation, accuracy, and repeatability between intraoral digital impression and conventional impression.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Prosthodontics
                Journal of Prosthodontics
                Wiley
                1059941X
                January 2018
                January 2018
                August 02 2016
                : 27
                : 1
                : 35-41
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute of Dentistry, University of Eastern Finland; Bachelor of dentistry; Kuopio Finland
                [2 ]Oral and Maxillofacial Department; Kuopio University Hospital; Kuopio Finland
                [3 ]Research Unit of Oral Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine; University of Oulu; Oulu Finland
                [4 ]Medical Research Centre; Oulu Finland
                [5 ]Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery; University Hospital; Oulu Finland
                [6 ]Department of Biomaterials Science and Turku Clinical Biomaterials Centre - TCBC; Turku Finland
                [7 ]Institute of Dentistry; University of Turku; Finland Turku Finland
                [8 ]Welfare Division; City of Turku Finland
                [9 ]Health Centre of Kuopio; Kuopio Finland
                [10 ]Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases; University Hospital; Kuopio Finland
                Article
                10.1111/jopr.12527
                27483210
                55a5cc92-d25e-4bf5-8d03-8a29fcc72f3f
                © 2016

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article