The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: An in vitro comparative study
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)
The future of dental devices is digital
Dent Mater
(2012)- et al.
Influence of mixing disinfectant solutions into alginate on working time and accuracy
J Dent
(1991) - et al.
Working time of elastomeric impression materials
Dent Mater
(1986) - et al.
Working time of elastomeric impression materials: relevance of rheological tests
Am J Dent
(2007) - et al.
Tooth-colored posterior restoration (in German)
Phillip J Restaur Zahnmed
(1987) - et al.
Cerec-system: computerized inlays, onlays and shell veneers (in German)
Zahnarztl Mitt
(1987) - et al.
The Cerec system: computer-assisted preparation of direct ceramic inlays in 1 setting (in German)
Quintessenz
(1987) - et al.
Cerec Guide: rapid and streamlined manufacture of surgical guides in dental practice
Int J Comput Dent
(2012) - et al.
CAD/CAM-produced surgical guides: optimizing the treatment workflow
Int J Comput Dent
(2011) - et al.
Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes
Clin Oral Implants Res
(2013)
Taking the headache out of impressions
Dent Today
Improving impressions: go digital!
Dent Today
Cited by (135)
THE ACCURACY OF INTRAORAL SCAN IN OBTAINING DIGITAL IMPRESSIONS OF EDENTULOUS ARCHES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
2024, Journal of Evidence-Based Dental PracticeINTRAORAL SCANNING AND CONVENTIONAL IMPRESSION MAY HAVE SIMILAR TIME EFFICIENCY FOR COMPLETE COVERAGE CROWNS AND THREE-UNIT FIXED TOOTH-SUPPORTED PROSTHESES
2023, Journal of Evidence-Based Dental PracticeClinical aspects of digital three-dimensional intraoral scanning in orthodontics – A systematic review
2023, Saudi Dental JournalThe influence of age and orthodontic debonding on the prevalence and severity of enamel craze lines
2023, Journal of the American Dental Association
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.