EVALUATION OF CLINICIAN SATISFACTION AND CLINICAL OUTCOMES WITH OPTICAL IMPRESSION SYSTEMS IN PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

Main Article Content

Sajid Ali Khan
Sheeba Wahab
Kamran khan
Muhammad Asif Nawaz
Yasir Ali Shah
Hijab Moeen

Keywords

Optical Impression, Accuracy, Clinician, Prosthetic

Abstract

Objective:


This study aimed to evaluate clinician satisfaction and clinical outcomes associated with optical impression systems compared to traditional impression methods in prosthetic dentistry.


Methodology:


The study used a prospective observational design with 230 participants. Data collection included demographic information, types of impression systems used, clinician satisfaction surveys assessing ease of use, accuracy, comfort, and overall satisfaction. It also involved clinical outcomes assessments such as impression accuracy and procedure time. Statistical analysis involved descriptive statistics, comparative analysis using chi-sqaure and t-tests to identify influencing factors.


Results:


The mean of the years of experience was 0.12 0.05. Additionally, 85% of clinicians reported high accuracy with optical system versus 70% with traditional methods. Furthermore, impressions taken using optical systems exhibited greater accuracy (p = 0.034).


Conclusions:


This study highlights the benefits of using optical impression systems in prosthetic dentistry, including greater clinician satisfaction, improved clinical outcomes, and enhanced accuracy and efficiency, which could improve prosthetic dental practice.

Abstract 292 | Pdf Downloads 82

References

1. Patzelt SBM, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig [Internet]. 2014;18(6):1687–94. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y
2. Joda T, Brägger U, Gallucci G. Systematic literature review of digital three-dimensional superimposition techniques to create virtual dental patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants [Internet]. 2015;30(2):330–7. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3852
3. Rodriguez R, Hartmann N, Figgener L, Kleinheinz J, Weingart D. Long term clinical outcome of dental implants placed in a patient with Singleton–Merten syndrome. J Prosthodont Res [Internet]. 2015;59(3):199–204. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2015.03.003
4. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res [Internet]. 2013;24(1):111–5. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02430.x
5. Güth J-F, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Investig [Internet]. 2017;21(5):1445–55. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1902-4
6. Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Fehmer V, Hämmerle CHF, Benic GI. Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part I: Time efficiency of complete-arch digital scans versus conventional impressions. J Prosthet Dent [Internet]. 2019;121(1):69–75. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.04.021
7. Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health [Internet]. 2017;17(1). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4
8. Güth JF, Edelhoff D, Schweiger J, Keul C, Stumbaum J. Virtual evaluation for the production of ceramic implant-supported crowns based on digital impression data. International Journal of Computerized Dentistry. 2016;19(2):127–39.
9. Sannino G, Barlattani A. Straightforward In-office Procedure for Fabricating an All-ceramic Restoration Using CAD/CAM Technology. Journal of Visualized Experiments. 2015;(98).
10. Alshagroud RS, Alfadda SA. Clinical outcomes of implant-supported restorations fabricated from digital impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2020;31(5):491–508.
11. 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 Jan 30;14:10–10.
12. Patzelt SBM, Lamprinos C, Stampf S, Att W. The time efficiency of intraoral scanners. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2014 Jun;145(6):542–51.
13. Reich S, Yatzko M. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in a clinical study. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113(4):304-309.
14. Christensen GJ. Will Digital Impressions Eliminate the Current Problems With Conventional Impressions? The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2008 Jun;139(6):761–3.
15. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions-an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent. 2013;16(1):11–21.
16. Abduo J, Palamara JEA. Accuracy of digital impressions versus conventional impressions for 2 implants: an in vitro study evaluating the effect of implant angulation. International journal of implant dentistry. 2021 Jul 30;7(1):75–75.
17. Schaefer O, Decker M, Wittstock F, Kuepper H, Guentsch A. Impact of digital impression techniques on the adaption of ceramic partial crowns in vitro. Journal of Dentistry. 2014 Jun;42(6):677–83.
18. Park JM, Kim HY, Kim JH, Kim WC, Kim JH. Comparison of prosthetic models produced by traditional and digital methods. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016;8(6):472–9.
19. Mangano FG, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, Mijiritsky E, Mangano C. Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: A comparative in vitro study. PLoS One. 2017;12(9)
20. Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B, McGlumphy EA Jr, Seidt J, Johnston WM. Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent [Internet]. 2020;123(1):96–104. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.01.003