Impact of procedures during prosthodontic treatment on patients’ perceived burdens

Hacker, Tim; Heydecke, Guido; Reißmann, Daniel R.

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2014.10.013

Cited by 22 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to results of the present study, the null hypothesis (1) was rejected, no significant differences were found between the two scanning systems regarding both trueness and precision (2). The 2 nd null hypothesis was rejected, a significant deference (p < 0,05) were found in the time efficiency, CEREC AC Omnicam showed the lowest mean deviation and consequently more time efficient than CARES and conventional impressions.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 46%

“…The null hypothesis was (1) because of requiring a layer of powder, the inhomogeneous powder thickness may affect the accuracy comparing with powder free system (2). There will be no difference in the time required to perform clinically acceptable impressions using material-based (polyvinyl siloxane [PVS]) monophasic method and chairside digital scanning techniques.…”

Section: Figure 1 Truness and Presicionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The advantage of these materials is that they are well accepted, accurate and are generally inexpensive. However, these methods have been reported as unpleasant and not favored by the patients (2).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of the Accuracy and Time Efficiency of Two Different digital Impressions of Single Tooth Implant Treatments

Alibrahim

Aslan²

2020

Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Over the last decades, techniques and materials have evolved with the improvement in digital technology. Computer-aided impressions have been transforming the dental implant field with these developments. The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the accuracy and time efficiency between two intraoral scanning systems in single tooth implant treatment.Methods: 10 patients with single tooth bone level implant (Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) received one conventional impression with polyvinyl siloxane and three scans with 2 different intra-oral scanners (CEREC AC Omnicam and Straumann CARES IOS). The time required for the impressions was measured at this stage. The casts obtained from conventional impressions were scanned as the master model to evaluate accuracy. Digital impression files were analyzed using a software (Geomagic Control). Independent Samples Test was performed for trueness and precision. One-way ANOVA was executed for time efficiency. Least significant difference test for post hoc comparison was conducted (p<0.05). Results:The differences between the two systems regarding trueness and precision were not statistically significant (P>0.05), but a statistically significant difference was found in the time efficiency (P<0.05). CEREC AC showed the lowest mean values in time measures. Conclusions:There was no difference regarding accuracy in comparison between CEREC AC Omnicam and CARES. CEREC AC Omnicam was found to be superior in terms of time efficiency in comparison to CARES and conventional impressions.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 46%

Section: Figure 1 Truness and Presicionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of the Accuracy and Time Efficiency of Two Different digital Impressions of Single Tooth Implant Treatments

Alibrahim

Aslan²

2020

Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Today, a digital change is visible in dentistry in the field of impression taking. This is because with the development of the systems in this field, a complete change can be expected in the impression‐taking procedure, which is considered as the worst experience by patients and children . In addition to that, the comfort of impression methods and the time they require are important because it is known that children are more stressed in their encounter with the dentist than the elderly, and their chairside times are shorter .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital versus conventional impression method in children: Comfort, preference and time

Yılmaz

Aydın

2019

Int J Paed Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The comfortness and effectiveness of digital and conventional impression methods in children have not yet been compared. Aim To assess the digital and conventional impression methods in children in terms of comfort, preference, and the time required to take impressions. Design Digital impressions were taken by using an intraoral scanner, and conventional impressions were taken by using alginate from 28 patients by the same operator. In each impression‐taking‐process, comfort was assessed by both the children and the clinician, and the chairside times were written. Student's t tests and Mann‐Whitney U tests were used for statistical analyses, and P < .05 was considered to be significant. Results The digital impression was considered to be more comfortable in the assessments by both the children and the clinician (P < .001). The total time the digital impression took was 465.89 ± 76.71 second(s) while that of the conventional impression was 450.25 ± 64.08 s when the chairside times of the two impression methods were compared. There was no statistically significant difference (P = .41). Conclusion The digital impression method compared with the conventional impression method was found to be both more comfortable and preferable by the children, but there was no difference in terms of the time required to take impressions.

show abstract

“…The intraoral scanner was first proposed and brought to the clinical arena in 1971 and were then referred to as “optical impressions.” Since that time, there has been an explosion in the research and development of these machines along with their integration into clinical practice . Practical benefits of intraoral scanning when compared to conventional impression materials have included better patient acceptance, decreased clinical time, and increased operator satisfaction …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the trueness and precision of complete arch digital impressions on a human maxilla using seven different intraoral digital impression systems and a laboratory scanner

Mennito

Evans

Nash

et al. 2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives An impression accuracy study using a cadaver maxilla was performed using both prepared and intact teeth as well as palatal tissue. Materials and Methods Three crown preparations were performed on a cadaver maxilla. Seven different digital impression systems along with polyvinylsiloxane impressions were used to create digital models of the maxilla. Three‐dimensional (3D) files of the experimental models were compared to a master model. The 3D files were overlaid and analyzed using a comparison software to create color coded figures that were measured for deviations between the master and experimental models. Results For scanning tooth structure, only the Planscan was significantly less accurate than the rest of impression techniques. No significant differences in accuracy were found between models created using digital impressions and those created from traditional vinyl polysiloxane impressions with cross arch deviations ranging from 18 to 39 μm for each. Conclusions Impressions taken using all digital impression systems, save for the Planscan, were able to accurately replicate the tissues of a complete arch human maxilla. Clinical Significance Studies examining accuracy of digital impression systems have generally been performed on materials other than dental tissues. Optically, materials such as plastic and metal have properties different from enamel and dentin. This study evaluates accuracy of digital impression systems on human dentin, enamel, and soft tissues.

show abstract

Impact of procedures during prosthodontic treatment on patients’ perceived burdens

Cited by 22 publications

References 26 publications

Comparison of the Accuracy and Time Efficiency of Two Different digital Impressions of Single Tooth Implant Treatments

Comparison of the Accuracy and Time Efficiency of Two Different digital Impressions of Single Tooth Implant Treatments

Digital versus conventional impression method in children: Comfort, preference and time

Evaluation of the trueness and precision of complete arch digital impressions on a human maxilla using seven different intraoral digital impression systems and a laboratory scanner

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About