In vivo evaluation of inter-operator reproducibility of digital dental and conventional impression techniques

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the inter-operator reproducibility of three-dimensional (3D) images of teeth captured by a digital impression technique to a conventional impression technique in vivo.Materials and methodsTwelve participants with complete natural dentition were included in this study. A digital impression of the mandibular molars of these participants was made by two operators with different levels of clinical experience, 3 or 16 years, using an intra-oral scanner (Lava COS, 3M ESPE). A silicone impression also was made by the same operators using the double mix impression technique (Imprint3, 3M ESPE). Stereolithography (STL) data were directly exported from the Lava COS system, while STL data of a plaster model made from silicone impression were captured by a three-dimensional (3D) laboratory scanner (D810, 3shape). The STL datasets recorded by two different operators were compared using 3D evaluation software and superimposed using the best-fit-algorithm method (least-squares method, PolyWorks, InnovMetric Software) for each impression technique. Inter-operator reproducibility as evaluated by average discrepancies of corresponding 3D data was compared between the two techniques (Wilcoxon signed-rank test).ResultsThe visual inspection of superimposed datasets revealed that discrepancies between repeated digital impression were smaller than observed with silicone impression. Confirmation was forthcoming from statistical analysis revealing significantly smaller average inter-operator reproducibility using a digital impression technique (0.014± 0.02 mm) than when using a conventional impression technique (0.023 ± 0.01 mm).ConclusionThe results of this in vivo study suggest that inter-operator reproducibility with a digital impression technique may be better than that of a conventional impression technique and is independent of the clinical experience of the operator.

Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients: An Update

“…To prevent any user influence, impression taking was performed by one experienced operator (L.K.) [30]. For better comparison of our results with those in the current literature, an established methodology was used [10].…”

3D Digital Impression Systems Compared with Traditional Techniques in Dentistry: A Recent Data Systematic Review

“…Accuracy could only be evaluated in comparison, preferably with a gold standard; which is not easy to establish in the oral cavity. Regarding precision, there is only a limited number of in vivo studies in the literature [48][49][50][51].…”

Service Evaluation of Recording Jaw Registrations for Removable Partial Dentures in NHS General Dental Practices

“…25 The user-friendly digital technique may therefore reduce denture quality discrepancy between general dental practitioners, with studies showing increased quality control reported by clinicians and technicians. 25…”

“…20 Statistical analysis of an in vivo study concluded the inter-operator reproducibility using digital impression technique may be better compared to the conventional silicone impression technique. 21 The userfriendly digital technique may therefore reduce denture quality discrepancy between general dental practitioners, with studies showing increased quality control reported by clinicians and technicians. 22 A potential service evaluation incorporating more GDPs would provide a greater understanding on GDPs technique on denture fabrication.…”