Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Conventional Vs Digital Impressions - Acceptability, Treatment Comfort and Stress Among Young Orthodontic Patients

    Uploaded by

    Cassiana Silva
    11 views7 pages

    Original Title

    Conventional vs Digital Impressions- Acceptability, Treatment Comfort and Stress Among Young Orthodontic Patients

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    11 views7 pages

    Conventional Vs Digital Impressions - Acceptability, Treatment Comfort and Stress Among Young Orthodontic Patients

    Uploaded by

    Cassiana Silva

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 7
    ‘Send Orders for Reprins to reprinus@benthamscience ae us ‘The Open Denssoy Journal 2018, 13 Suppl, ME) E126 ~- - pala a The Open Dentistry Journal @ome cua eer itge DD or 102174ns7ai0s0is}200118 RESEARCH ARTICLE Conventional Vs Digital Impressions: Acceptability, Treatment Comfort and Stress Among Young Orthodontic Patients Alessandro Mangano”’, Matteo Beretta’, Giuseppe Luongo’, Carlo Mangano’ and Francesco ‘Mangano’ ‘Private practice, Piazza Trento 4, 22015 Gravedona ed Unit, Como, aly ‘Private practice, Casale Monferrato, Alessandria, aly ‘Department of Oral and Macillofacial Str gery, University of Naples, Naples, aly “Department of Denial Sciences, Raffaele Unversity, Milan, Italy ‘Department of Surgical and Morphological Science, Dental School, University of Varese, Varese, laly Receied: November 17,2017 Revised: December 20,2017 Accepted Fansry 05,2018, ‘Bbrtract Objective ‘The objective of the precent study svar to compare patient acceptability, comst al stess with conventional and digital sampressions Material and Methods: ‘Thisty young orthodontic patients (15 males and 15 females) who lad no previonsexpesiance of inressions were emwolled in this study. Conventional impression: for oxthodontic study models ofthe dental aches were fakensing an alginate impression material (Giydogum’, Zhemack Spa, Badia Polesne, Rovigo, Italy), Fiteen days late, digital impressions of both anches were acquired ‘using an intsoral scanner (CS3600", Caustieann Dental, Rochester, NY, USA). Inunediately after impession taking, patients’ acceplcbilty, comfort and stess were measied wing bro questiomnates a the State asety sale Results Data showed no difference in tems of anxiety ad tess; hnrever, patients prefened the use of digital impressions systems instead cof conventional npierrion teluiquer. Algiate impussion reauled ae facta digital npaessione Conclusions: Digital impressions resulted the most accepted ae confotabe impression tecluigue in young oxthedantic patients, when compared to conventional technagues Keywords: Digital impression, Intaoral seamen, Ptiens’ references, Treatment comfort, Confortable impression tecluigue, Alginate impressions L INTRODUCTION ‘A pronounced gag reflex maybe a potential problem for the acceptance and delivery of dental treatments. Even if there is the availability of a range of management strategies, even simple dental procedures are not accepted by some yatients. Gagging problems aze not uncommon in daily dental practice and the exect prevalence is unknown. This can have an important impact on treatment plan and dental heatment outcome [1] Ailes corespandance to this waar a The Stalio Odetonrice Nang, Pasa Tato 4 20015 Gavedaw ed Uni, Camo, aly. Teh 199-0344 95504, Fox +38 0344- 550251 Emel demmgmol0g@gaailcan 1974210608 2018 Bextra Open Conventional Vs Digi Impressions ‘The Open Dendsoy Journal, 218, Volume 12 19 ‘The use of intraoral scanners for studly models has increased dramatically among orthodontists, Digital scanners axe capable to obtain high quelity imyressions and to reduce several problems like the gag reflex [2] Intraoral scanning stems were intoduced in dentistry in the mid 1980s, Itwas forecasted that he major prt ofthe dentists inthe US. and Europe would be wing innacal scanners fr taking inresions inthe next decades (3) Digital impressions can offer avaity of aantages such as reduced patient discomfor, inefficiency, simplified clinical procedaze, and ability of captunng end stonng highly accurate information (the 3D virtual models of patients) tithout pouring stone cess. The possibilty of avoiding pouring stone casts can save space and time inthe elie Fuster advantages ofthe digital impressions and scanning systems are the posmbiityto eel transfer digitl data to the dental technician, va em, voiding imyression shipping tothe Iboratory this eslts ine beter communication ath the Iboretory (4). The dental technician cen immediately visualize tooth preparations (or the position of implant seenbotes), en ths guarantees a better communication Digital dentistry is transforming the relationship between dentist and dental laboratory. As apart ofthis trend, invaorl scanners are playing a wvota oe to ths changing relationship [']Inthe las few yeas, several tudes have dealt with IOS and their use in different feds of dentistry (6, 7]. However, only afew studies have compared the tent preference and comfort with dg and conventional impressions (6 ] im particular aniong young patents) Hence, the aim of the present study was fo evaluate the patents” preferences and attitudes foward the digital impreson technique compared tothe conventional impression technique, in young orthodoutic patents. The mill hypothesis was that thee is no difference in patients" preference and teetment comfort between the conventional end digital ampresion techniques. 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1, Study Design, Sample and Clinical Scenario ‘The study population consisted of 30 subjects (15 males and 15 females) referring to one private practice (Studio Odontoiatrco Mangano, Gravedona, Como, Italy). The age ranged fiom 7 to 16 years (mean age 11 years +4 months). ‘The subjects had no previous experience of conventional or digital impressions. The subjects and parents or legal representative were informed about the clinical procedures and of possible risks and benefits, signed consent form was obtained forall patients All the subjects underwent impression taking in order to obtain orthodontic study models. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are summarized in Table 1. The study protocol was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2007. A priori sample size calculation was performed with a= 005 and a power setat 80% ‘Table Inclusion and exchison criteria, Trchsen Cates edie Gates ‘Good ealineti Trevis opens wah ma Good aalingsane Hiary of ethodaex temas Toparniaal dese Biesace of Wosieti resents 2.2. Comventional lmpressions ‘The proper tray for maxillary end mandibular arches was selected by one operator (FM). The conventional impressions of both arches were made using an alginate impression material (Hytogum, Zhermack Spa, Badia Polesine, Rovigo, Italy). The impression material was prepared according to manufacturer's instructions and recommendations. The acceptability and perceptions of subjects were recorded immediately after the procedure using a standardized questionnaire. Patients’ attitude and discomfort was tested immediately aftr the impression using a VAS (Visual anslogue scale). The perceived source of stress was assessed using a State anxiety scale 23, Digital Impressions ‘A digital impression of both arches (Figs. 1 and 2) was obtained 15 days after the conventional imynessions appointment. The digital impressions were perforned using an inteorel scanner (CS3600", Carestream, Rochester, NY, USA). The digital date of both arches were recorded according to manufacturer's instritions by the same operator END. The acceptability and perceptions of subjects were recorded immediately after the procedwe sing a standardized questionnaze.Patints’ etude and discomfort was tested immediately afer the impression using a VAS (Visual 120 The Open Dendsny Jurnal, 16, Vebume 12 Mangano cecal Analogue Scale) The perceived source ofshess was assessed using a State anxiety sele(S-scale) ig (2) Digital imgression ofthe dental arches ofa young exthodontic patient witha definitive dentition, Fig @2) Frontal ight and left view ofthe dental arches ofa young exthodontc patient witha mixed dentition 24, Statistical Analysis ‘The acceptability and perceptions of the subjects on both impression techniques were assessed with a self Conventional Vs Digi Impressions ‘The Open Dendy Journal, 2018, Volume 12 121 dministated questionnate using @ Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ranging fiom 0 to 100, The data were analyzed statistically applying the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, the level for statistical significance was set atp = 0.05, using the ‘SPSS 150 statistical software (SPSS'Ine, Chicago, IL, USA). The subjects’ references forthe impression techniques were assessed with a 9-item comparative questionnaie [J]. Descriptive statistical analysis using the SPSS 150 statistic] software (SPSS'Ine, Chicago, IL, USA) was used to evaluate the distribution of the answers. The perceived, souce of sess was evaluated using a State anxiety scale and statistically analyzed by Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test (005). 3. RESULTS 3.1, Patients’ Accep tabiity and Percep tions ‘The evaluation scores of acceptability and perceptions by the patients ae summarized in Teble 2. The subjects’ level of stress was evaluated by State anxiety scale. The mean scores of this test were not significant (p>0.05). The mean scores of the subjects perceptions cnteria were significantly different (p<00001) except for overall time ‘myression. The conventional impression technique resulted to be slighlty faster in terms of time. The digital impression technique was the most accepted by patients and all subjects preferred this technique (p<0.001). The 9-item questionnaie scores are summarized in Table 3 ‘Table 2, Patient’ acceptability, facings and streas perceived. *p<0.05. ‘Braiation VAS) Cavern (ean) Tig OD) Fake Overalls 50836 90.508630

    You might also like