Intraoral scans vs. conventional impressions for dental diagnosis and treatment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35381/s.v.v6i1.1737Keywords:
Mouth rehabilitation, oral health, dental clinics. (Source, DeCS).Abstract
Objective: To compare methods and identify the advantages and disadvantages of digital flow. Method: Bibliographic documentary type, by means of a search of articles in databases such as: PubMed. Results: 27 were selected as they contained the necessary information to fulfill the main objective of this review. Conclusion: Impression taking is still considered to be uncomfortable for the patient causing in many from nausea to difficulty breathing and choking, creating bad experiences that generate mistrust in the patient when in the dental environment, while the scanner generally does not originate this type of problems.
Downloads
References
Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review. J Prosthodont. 2015;24(4):313-321. doi:10.1111/jopr.12218
Luqmani S, Jones A, Andiappan M, Cobourne MT. A comparison of conventional vs automated digital Peer Assessment Rating scoring using the Carestream 3600 scanner and CS Model+ software system: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020;157(2):148-155.e1. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.10.011
Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):149. Published 2017 Dec 12. doi:10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x
Grünheid T, Patel N, De Felippe NL, Wey A, Gaillard PR, Larson BE. Accuracy, reproducibility, and time efficiency of dental measurements using different technologies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(2):157-164. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.10.012
Stanley M, Paz AG, Miguel I, Coachman C. Fully digital workflow, integrating dental scan, smile design and CAD-CAM: case report. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):134. Published 2018 Aug 7. doi:10.1186/s12903-018-0597-0
Torassian G, Kau CH, English JD, et al. Digital models vs plaster models using alginate and alginate substitute materials. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(4):474-481. doi:10.2319/072409-413.1
Derksen W, Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D. A Randomized Clinical Trial comparing the clinical fit of CAD/CAM monolithic zirconia Fixed Dental Prostheses (FDP) on ti-base abutments based on digital or conventional impression techniques. One year follow-up. Int J Prosthodont. 2021;34(6):733–743. doi:10.11607/ijp.7074
Wismeijer D, Joda T, Flügge T, et al. Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Digital technologies. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29 Suppl 16:436-442. doi:10.1111/clr.13309
Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(11):1360-1367. doi:10.1111/clr.12994
Runkel C, Güth JF, Erdelt K, Keul C. Digital impressions in dentistry-accuracy of impression digitalisation by desktop scanners. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(3):1249-1257. doi:10.1007/s00784-019-02995-w
Wei D, Di P, Tian J, Zhao Y, Lin Y. Evaluation of intraoral digital impressions for obtaining gingival contour in the esthetic zone: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(4):1401-1410. doi:10.1007/s00784-019-03105-6
Aragón ML, Pontes LF, Bichara LM, Flores-Mir C, Normando D. Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(4):429-434. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjw033
Kihara H, Hatakeyama W, Komine F, et al. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review. J Prosthodont Res. 2020;64(2):109-113. doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2019.07.010
Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(3):343-352. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.10.029
Suese K. Progress in digital dentistry: The practical use of intraoral scanners. Dent Mater J. 2020;39(1):52-56. doi:10.4012/dmj.2019-224
Burzynski JA, Firestone AR, Beck FM, Fields HW Jr, Deguchi T. Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018;153(4):534-541. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.08.017
Delize V, Bouhy A, Lambert F, Lamy M. Intrasubject comparison of digital vs. conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns: Prosthodontic and patient-centered outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30(9):892-902. doi:10.1111/clr.13494
Amornvit P, Sanohkan S. The Accuracy of Digital Face Scans Obtained from 3D Scanners: An In Vitro Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(24):5061. Published 2019 Dec 12. doi:10.3390/ijerph16245061
Burhardt L, Livas C, Kerdijk W, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y. Treatment comfort, time perception, and preference for conventional and digital impression techniques: A comparative study in young patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;150(2):261-267. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.12.027
Joda T, Brägger U. Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(12):e185-e189. doi:10.1111/clr.12600
Zimmermann M, Ender A, Mehl A. Local accuracy of actual intraoral scanning systems for single-tooth preparations in vitro. J Am Dent Assoc. 2020;151(2):127-135. doi:10.1016/j.adaj.2019.10.022
Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):92. Published 2017 Jun 2. doi:10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4
Flügge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, Nelson K. Precision of Dental Implant Digitization Using Intraoral Scanners. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29(3):277-283. doi:10.11607/ijp.4417
Blatz MB, Conejo J. The Current State of Chairside Digital Dentistry and Materials. Dent Clin North Am. 2019;63(2):175-197. doi:10.1016/j.cden.2018.11.002
Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Thor A. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):27. Published 2018 Feb 23. doi:10.1186/s12903-018-0489-3
Michelinakis G, Apostolakis D, Kamposiora P, Papavasiliou G, Özcan M. The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):37. Published 2021 Jan 21. doi:10.1186/s12903-021-01398-2
Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011;14(1):1-16. doi:10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01503.x
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
CC BY-NC-SA : Esta licencia permite a los reutilizadores distribuir, remezclar, adaptar y construir sobre el material en cualquier medio o formato solo con fines no comerciales, y solo siempre y cuando se dé la atribución al creador. Si remezcla, adapta o construye sobre el material, debe licenciar el material modificado bajo términos idénticos.
OAI-PMH: https://fundacionkoinonia.com.ve/ojs/index.php/saludyvida/oai.
