Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes
Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02430.x
复制
发表时间：
2013-01-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Gallucci, German O.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lee, Sang J.;Gallucci, German O.
目的本研究的目的是评价数字印模与传统印模在单颗种植体修复中的效率、难度和操作者偏好。材料和方法30名HSDM二年级牙科学生在定制模型上进行常规和数字种植体印模，呈现单个种植体。根据验收标准评价印模结果，并决定是否需要重新拍摄/重新扫描。两种印模技术的效率通过测量准备、工作和重拍/扫描时间（m/s）以及重拍/重拍次数进行评价。通过视觉模拟量表（VAS）问卷评估参与者对两种印象难度水平的感知。研究人员收集了多份问卷，以评估参与者对偏好、有效性和熟练程度的看法。结果传统印模组平均总治疗时间为24：42 m/s，数字印模组为12：29 m/s（P < 0.001）。传统印模的平均准备时间为4：42 m/s，数字印模的平均准备时间为3：35 m/s（P < 0.001）。包括重拍/再扫描在内的平均工作时间，传统印模需要20：00 m/s，数字印模需要8：54 m/s（P < 0.001）。在0100 VAS量表上，参与者对传统印模技术的平均难度水平评分为43.12（+/- 18.46），对数字印模技术的平均难度水平评分为30.63（+/- 17.57）（P = 0.006）。60%的参与者喜欢数字印模，7%的人喜欢传统印模技术，33%的人喜欢任何一种技术。结论数字印模比传统印模更有效。完成一个可接受的传统印模需要较长的准备、工作和重拍时间。当由没有经验的二年级牙科学生进行时，与传统印模相比，数字印模的难度较低。
Objectives The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the efficiency, difficulty and operator's preference of a digital impression compared with a conventional impression for single implant restorations. Materials and methods Thirty HSDM second year dental students performed conventional and digital implant impressions on a customized model presenting a single implant. The outcome of the impressions was evaluated under an acceptance criteria and the need for retake/rescan was decided. The efficiency of both impression techniques was evaluated by measuring the preparation, working, and retake/scan time (m/s) and the number of retakes/rescans. Participants' perception on the level of difficulty for the both impressions was assessed with a visual analogue scale (VAS) questionnaire. Multiple questionnaires were obtained to assess the participants' perception on preference, effectiveness and proficiency. Results Mean total treatment time was of 24:42 m/s for conventional and 12:29 m/s for digital impressions (P < 0.001). Mean preparation time was of 4:42 m/s for conventional and 3:35 m/s for digital impressions (P < 0.001). Mean working time including retakes/rescans demanded 20:00 m/s for conventional vs. 8:54 m/s for digital impression (P < 0.001). On a 0100 VAS scale, the participants scored a mean difficulty level of 43.12 (+/- 18.46) for conventional impression technique and 30.63 (+/- 17.57) for digital impression technique (P = 0.006). Sixty percent of the participants preferred the digital impression, 7% the conventional impression technique and 33% preferred either technique. Conclusions Digital impressions resulted in a more efficient technique than conventional impressions. Longer preparation, working, and retake time were consumed to complete an acceptable conventional impression. Difficulty was lower for the digital impression compared with the conventional ones when performed by inexperienced second year dental students.