Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes.
Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1472-6831-14-10
复制
发表时间：
2014-01-30
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Bilir H
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yuzbasioglu E;Kurt H;Turunc R;Bilir H
本研究的目的是从患者偏好和治疗舒适度的角度比较两种印模技术。 24 名（12 名男性，12 名女性）之前没有传统或数字印模经验的受试者参与了这项研究。上颌和下颌牙弓的传统印模是使用聚醚印模材料（Impregum，3 M ESPE）进行的，咬合记录是使用聚硅氧烷咬合记录材料（Futar D，Kettenbach）进行的。两周后，使用口腔内扫描仪（CEREC Omnicam，Sirona）进行数字印模和咬合扫描。印象完成后，立即使用标准化问卷评估受试者对印象技术的态度、偏好和看法。使用状态特质焦虑量表评估感知的压力来源。印模技术的处理步骤（托盘选择、工作时间等）以秒为单位记录。采用 Wilcoxon Rank 检验进行统计分析，p<<0.05 被认为是显着的。各组之间在总工作时间和加工步骤方面存在显着差异（p<0.05）。患者表示数字印模比传统技术更舒适。与传统印模相比，数字印模是一种更省时的技术。与传统技术相比，患者更喜欢数字印模技术。
The purpose of this study was to compare two impression techniques from the perspective of patient preferences and treatment comfort. 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. 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. Digital impressions resulted in a more time-efficient technique than conventional impressions. Patients preferred the digital impression technique rather than conventional techniques.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
Lee, Heeje;Ercoli, Carlo;Feng, Changyong
通讯作者：
Feng, Changyong
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Alhouri, N;McCord, JF;Smith, PW
通讯作者：
Smith, PW
影响因子：
2.3
作者：
Kim, So-Yeun;Kim, Myung-Joo;Kwon, Ho-Beom
通讯作者：
Kwon, Ho-Beom
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Brawek, Petya K.;Wolfart, Stefan;Reich, Sven
通讯作者：
Reich, Sven
影响因子：
4.3
作者：
Lee, Sang J.;Gallucci, German O.
通讯作者：
Gallucci, German O.