Department of Reconstructive Dentistry & Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Oct;28(10):1318-1323. doi: 10.1111/clr.12982. Epub 2016 Sep 5.
The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to analyze implant impression techniques applying intraoral scanning (IOS) and the conventional method according to time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference.
One hundred participants (n = 100) with diverse levels of dental experience were included and randomly assigned to Group A performing digital scanning (TRIOS Pod) first or Group B conducting conventional impression (open tray with elastomer) first, while the second method was performed consecutively. A customized maxillary model with a bone-level-type implant in the right canine position (FDI-position 13) was mounted on a phantom training unit realizing a standardized situation for all participants. Outcome parameter was time efficiency, and potential influence of clinical experience, operator's perception of level of difficulty, applicability of each method, and subjective preferences were analyzed with Wilcoxon -Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests.
Mean total work time varied between 5.01 ± 1.56 min (students) and 4.53 ± 1.34 min (dentists) for IOS, and between 12.03 ± 2.00 min (students) and 10.09 ± 1.15 min (dentists) for conventional impressions with significant differences between the two methods. Neither assignment to Group A or B, nor gender nor number of impression-taking procedures did influence working time. Difficulty and applicability of IOS was perceived more favorable compared to conventional impressions, and effectiveness of IOS was rated better by the majority of students (88%) and dentists (64%). While 76% of the students preferred IOS, 48% of the dentists were favoring conventional impressions, and 26% each IOS and either technique.
For single-implant sites, the quadrant-like intraoral scanning (IOS) was more time efficient than the conventional full-arch impression technique in a phantom head simulating standardized optimal conditions. A high level of acceptance for IOS was observed among students and dentists.
本随机对照试验旨在分析采用口腔内扫描（IOS）和传统方法进行种植体印模的时间效率、难度和操作人员偏好。
共纳入 100 名不同牙科经验水平的参与者，随机分为 A 组（先进行数字化扫描（TRIOS Pod））或 B 组（先进行传统印模（开放式托盘加弹性体）），然后连续进行第二种方法。将带有右犬齿位置（FDI 位置 13）骨水平式种植体的定制上颌模型安装在幻影训练单元上，为所有参与者实现标准化情况。结果参数为时间效率，并通过 Wilcoxon -Mann-Whitney 和 Kruskal-Wallis 检验分析临床经验、操作人员对难度水平的感知、每种方法的适用性和主观偏好的潜在影响。
IOS 的总工作时间平均值为 5.01±1.56 分钟（学生）和 4.53±1.34 分钟（牙医），传统印模的总工作时间平均值为 12.03±2.00 分钟（学生）和 10.09±1.15 分钟（牙医），两种方法之间存在显著差异。无论是分配到 A 组还是 B 组、性别还是取印模次数，都不会影响工作时间。与传统印模相比，操作人员对 IOS 的难度和适用性的评价更为有利，且大多数学生（88%）和牙医（64%）认为 IOS 的效果更好。虽然 76%的学生更喜欢 IOS，但 48%的牙医更喜欢传统印模，26%的学生和牙医各有偏好。
在模拟标准化最佳条件的幻影头颅中，对于单个种植体部位，象限式口腔内扫描（IOS）比传统的全牙弓印模技术更省时。学生和牙医对 IOS 的接受度都很高。
