The time efficiency of intraoral scanners
: An in vitro comparative study

https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.2014.23Get rights and content

ABSTRACT

Background

Although intraoral scanners are known to have good accuracy in computer-aided impression making (CAIM), their effect on time efficiency is not. Little is known about the time required to make a digital impression. The purpose of the authors’ in vitro investigation was to evaluate the time efficiency of intraoral scanners.

Methods

The authors used three different intraoral scanners to digitize a single abutment (scenario 1), a short-span fixed dental prosthesis (scenario 2) and a full-arch prosthesis preparation (scenario 3). They measured the procedure durations for the several scenarios and compiled and contrasted the procedure durations for three conventional impression materials.

Results

The mean total procedure durations for making digital impressions of scenarios 1, 2 and 3 were as much as 5 minutes 57 seconds, 6 minutes 57 seconds, and 20 minutes 55 seconds, respectively. Results showed statistically significant differences between all scanners (P < .05), except Lava (3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minn.) and iTero with foot pedal (Align Technology, San Jose, Calif.) for scenario 1, CEREC (Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) and CEREC with foot pedal for scenario 2, and iTero and iTero with foot pedal for scenarios 2 and 3. The compiled procedure durations for making conventional impressions in scenarios 1 and 2 ranged between 18 minutes 15 seconds and 27 minutes 25 seconds; for scenario 3, they ranged between 21 minutes 25 seconds and 30 minutes 25 seconds.

Conclusions

The authors found that CAIM was significantly faster for all tested scenarios. This suggests that CAIM might be beneficial in establishing a more time-efficient work flow.

Practical Implications

On the basis of the results of this in vitro study, the authors found CAIM to be superior regarding time efficiency in comparison with conventional approaches and might accelerate the work flow of making impressions.

Section snippets

Scan models and scan procedure

To obtain information about the time efficiency of CAI, we used a dentate maxillary and mandibular study model (KaVo, Biberach, Germany) to mimic different clinical scenarios. We prepared (by using an equigingival chamfer preparation) the first maxillary right molar (scenario 1: single abutment), the second maxillary right premolar and second molar (scenario 2: two abutments, single-span fixed dental prosthesis [FDP] preparation and the entire maxilla (scenario 3: full-arch preparation, 14

Summary of results

The CAIM approach was up to 23 minutes faster than conventional impression making in total time for all three scenarios in this study. The fastest devices for each scenario were the CEREC AC with Bluecam for single-abutment scans, the CEREC AC with Bluecam with foot pedal for single-span FDPs and the Lava C.O.S. for full-arch scans (Table 2). We found highest variations in the foot-pedal approaches and in the abutment scan time (Table 3, page 547). The iTero with foot pedal showed the highest

DISCUSSION

The implementation of CAIM is supposed to improve the work flow of impression making, lead to higher patient satisfaction and provide better restorations in comparison with the conventional approach.8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Several studies have dealt with these research topics; however, their investigators have reported little about the time efficiency of this technology, which might be of high relevance, especially for general practitioners in terms of optimizing work flows.

In this study,

CONCLUSION

Compared with the compiled times required to make conventional impressions, intraoral scanners were up to 23 minutes faster for single abutments, up to 22 minutes faster for single-span FDP preparations and up to 13 minutes faster for full-arch preparations (14 abutments) when one considers the total procedure duration for each process. The findings suggest that using CAIM results in a more time-efficient work flow than that possible with conventional impression making; however, there are

References (24)

  • R van Noort

    The future of dental devices is digital

    Dent Mater

    (2012)
  • M Rosen et al.

    Influence of mixing disinfectant solutions into alginate on working time and accuracy

    J Dent

    (1991)
  • M Ohsawa et al.

    Working time of elastomeric impression materials

    Dent Mater

    (1986)
  • M Balkenhol et al.

    Working time of elastomeric impression materials: relevance of rheological tests

    Am J Dent

    (2007)
  • F Lutz et al.

    Tooth-colored posterior restoration (in German)

    Phillip J Restaur Zahnmed

    (1987)
  • WH Mörmann et al.

    Cerec-system: computerized inlays, onlays and shell veneers (in German)

    Zahnarztl Mitt

    (1987)
  • WH Mörmann et al.

    The Cerec system: computer-assisted preparation of direct ceramic inlays in 1 setting (in German)

    Quintessenz

    (1987)
  • A Bindl et al.

    Cerec Guide: rapid and streamlined manufacture of surgical guides in dental practice

    Int J Comput Dent

    (2012)
  • J Neugebauer et al.

    CAD/CAM-produced surgical guides: optimizing the treatment workflow

    Int J Comput Dent

    (2011)
  • SJ Lee et al.

    Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes

    Clin Oral Implants Res

    (2013)
  • B Jacobson

    Taking the headache out of impressions

    Dent Today

    (2007)
  • A Zweig

    Improving impressions: go digital!

    Dent Today

    (2009)
  • Cited by (135)

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Disclosure. None of the authors reported any disclosures.

    1

    Dr. Patzelt is a visiting research professor and the course director, Prosthetic Lecture Series and Seminar, Implant Periodontal Prosthodontics Program, Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland, Baltimore. He also is an assistant professor and a scientific associate, Prosthetic Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, University of Freiburg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.

    2

    Dr. Lamprinos is an assistant professor and a doctoral candidate, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, University of Freiburg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.

    3

    Dr. Stampf was a statistician, Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Center for Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, University Medical Center Freiburg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, when this article was written. She now is a biostatistician, Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland.

    4

    Dr. Att is an associate professor and the director, Postgraduate Program, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.

    View full text