Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

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


Sailer, Irena; Mühlemann, Sven; Fehmer, Vincent; Hämmerle, Christoph H F; Benic, Goran I (2019). 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. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 121(1):69-75.

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Clinical trials are needed to evaluate digital and conventional technologies for providing fixed partial dentures. PURPOSE The purpose of the first part of this clinical study was to test whether complete-arch digital scans were similar to or better than complete-arch conventional impressions regarding time efficiency and participant and clinician perceptions. MATERIAL AND METHODS Ten participants in need of a posterior tooth-supported 3-unit fixed partial denture were included. Three intraoral digital scanners and subsequent workflows (Lava C.O.S.; 3M [Lava], iTero; Align Technology Inc [iTero], Cerec Bluecam; Dentsply Sirona [Cerec]) were compared with the conventional impression method using polyether (Permadyne; 3M) and the conventional workflow. A computer-generated randomization list was used to determine the sequence of the tested impression procedures for each participant. The time needed for the impression procedures, including the occlusal registration, was assessed. In addition, the participant and clinician perceptions of the comfort and difficulty of the impression were rated by means of visual analog scales. Data were analyzed with the nonparametric paired Wilcoxon test together with an appropriate Bonferroni correction to detect differences among the impression systems (α=.05). RESULTS The total time for the complete-arch impressions, including the preparation (powdering) and the occlusal registration, was shorter for the conventional impression than for the digital scans (Lava 1091 ±523 seconds, iTero 1313 ±418 seconds, Cerec 1702 ±558 seconds, conventional 658 ±181 seconds). The difference was statistically significant for 2 of the 3 digital scanners (iTero P=.001, Cerec P<.001). The clinicians preferred the conventional impression to the digital scans. Of the scanning systems, the system without the need for powdering was preferred to the systems with powdering. No impression method was clearly preferred over others by the participants. CONCLUSIONS For complete-arch impressions, the conventional impression procedures were objectively less time consuming and subjectively preferred by both clinicians and participants over digital scan procedures.

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Clinical trials are needed to evaluate digital and conventional technologies for providing fixed partial dentures. PURPOSE The purpose of the first part of this clinical study was to test whether complete-arch digital scans were similar to or better than complete-arch conventional impressions regarding time efficiency and participant and clinician perceptions. MATERIAL AND METHODS Ten participants in need of a posterior tooth-supported 3-unit fixed partial denture were included. Three intraoral digital scanners and subsequent workflows (Lava C.O.S.; 3M [Lava], iTero; Align Technology Inc [iTero], Cerec Bluecam; Dentsply Sirona [Cerec]) were compared with the conventional impression method using polyether (Permadyne; 3M) and the conventional workflow. A computer-generated randomization list was used to determine the sequence of the tested impression procedures for each participant. The time needed for the impression procedures, including the occlusal registration, was assessed. In addition, the participant and clinician perceptions of the comfort and difficulty of the impression were rated by means of visual analog scales. Data were analyzed with the nonparametric paired Wilcoxon test together with an appropriate Bonferroni correction to detect differences among the impression systems (α=.05). RESULTS The total time for the complete-arch impressions, including the preparation (powdering) and the occlusal registration, was shorter for the conventional impression than for the digital scans (Lava 1091 ±523 seconds, iTero 1313 ±418 seconds, Cerec 1702 ±558 seconds, conventional 658 ±181 seconds). The difference was statistically significant for 2 of the 3 digital scanners (iTero P=.001, Cerec P<.001). The clinicians preferred the conventional impression to the digital scans. Of the scanning systems, the system without the need for powdering was preferred to the systems with powdering. No impression method was clearly preferred over others by the participants. CONCLUSIONS For complete-arch impressions, the conventional impression procedures were objectively less time consuming and subjectively preferred by both clinicians and participants over digital scan procedures.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
1 citation in Web of Science®
1 citation in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

7 downloads since deposited on 29 Aug 2018
7 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Uncontrolled Keywords:Oral Surgery
Language:English
Date:January 2019
Deposited On:29 Aug 2018 13:57
Last Modified:16 Jan 2019 02:02
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0022-3913
OA Status:Closed
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.04.021
PubMed ID:30017152

Download