TIME ASSESSMENT IN CLASSICAL VS DIGITAL IMPRESSIONS

被引:0
|
作者
Novac, Andrea Cobruta [1 ,2 ]
Filip, Vlad [1 ]
Negrut, Daria [1 ]
Moldovan, Ioana [1 ]
Pop, Daniela Maria [1 ,2 ]
Tanase, Alina [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Zaharia, Cristian [1 ,2 ]
Negrutiu, Meda Lavinia [1 ,2 ]
Craciunescu, Emanuela Lidia [1 ,2 ]
Rominu, Mihai [1 ,2 ]
Duma, Virgil-Florin [4 ]
Sinescu, Cosmin [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Victor Babes Univ Med & Pharm Timisoara, 2 Piata Eftimie Murgu, Timisoara 300041, Romania
[2] Victor Babes Univ Med & Pharm Timisoara, Res Ctr Dent Med Using Convent & Alternat Technol, Fac Dent Med, Dept Prostheses Technol & Dent Mat, 9 Revolutiei 1989 Ave, Timisoara 300070, Romania
[3] Victor Babe Univ Med & Pharm, Fac Dent Med, Dept Profess Legislat Dent Med, Timisoara, Romania
[4] Aurel Vlaicu Univ Arad, OM Optomechatron Grp 3, 77 Revolutiei Ave, Arad 310130, Romania
来源
关键词
gingival retraction; digital impression; conventional impression; GINGIVAL RETRACTION; CORDLESS;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Aim of the study is an ex-vivo time analysis comparing conventional and digital impression methods for prosthodontic restorations. Insights gleaned from ex-vivo experiments hold promise for enhancing existing practices. This primary experimental investigation will prioritize the consideration of both clinician and patient requirements when determining treatment modalities. Materials and Method: The study involved five stages: preparing an artificial arch, measuring time for gingival retraction with cords and paste, assessing time for conventional and digital impressions, and data analysis. A Frasaco maxillary model with 16 teeth was utilized, 14 prepared using cylindrical-conical burs. Gingival retraction cords and paste were applied, and impression times were recorded for both conventional and digital methods. Results and Discussions: Time analyses showed varying durations for gingival retraction techniques, with the paste method significantly faster than retraction cords. Digital impressions exhibited shorter scanning times compared to conventional methods, especially for fewer number of teeth. However, conventional two-step impressions took longer but provided better cervical area fidelity. This study highlighted the efficiency of digital scanning, offering shorter impression times and reduced patient discomfort. Research also emphasized the differences between retraction methods, with varied effects on periodontal tissues and impression quality. Comparison studies indicated benefits and challenges associated with different impression techniques. Conclusion: The findings underscored the need for practitioners to choose impression methods based on time efficiency and patient needs. Optical scanning proved quickest for fewer teeth, while retraction cord and paste methods require careful consideration. While the study didn't explore gingival tissue effects, it highlighted crucial considerations for impression materials and chemical solutions. These insights offer practitioners guidance in selecting optimal techniques for effective and efficient dental procedures.
引用
收藏
页码:494 / 500
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Direct vs. Indirect Digital Implant Impressions: A Time and Cost Analysis
    Sampaio-Fernandes, Manuel Antonio
    Pinto, Ricardo Jorge
    Almeida, Paulo Rocha
    Sampaio-Fernandes, Maria Margarida
    Marques, Duarte Nuno Silva
    Figueiral, Maria Helena
    DENTISTRY JOURNAL, 2024, 12 (11)
  • [2] CLASSICAL IMPRESSIONS
    THURMAN, WS
    CURTIS, TB
    MODERN LANGUAGE JOURNAL, 1976, 60 (1-2): : 71 - 71
  • [3] Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes
    Lee, Sang J.
    Gallucci, German O.
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2013, 24 (01) : 111 - 115
  • [4] Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Papaspyridakos, Panos
    Vazouras, Konstantinos
    Chen, Yo-wei
    Kotina, Elli
    Natto, Zuhair
    Kang, Kiho
    Chochlidakis, Konstantinos
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY, 2020, 29 (08): : 660 - 678
  • [5] Accuracy of Digital Impressions and Fitness of Single Crowns Based on Digital Impressions
    Yang, Xin
    Lv, Pin
    Liu, Yihong
    Si, Wenjie
    Feng, Hailan
    MATERIALS, 2015, 8 (07): : 3945 - 3957
  • [6] Digital impressions in implantology
    Woestmann, Bernd
    Schmidt, Alexander
    Schlenz, Maximiliane Amelie
    IMPLANTOLOGIE, 2021, 29 (03): : 243 - 255
  • [7] Digital Impressions in Dentistry
    Dalal, Aakanksha Mahesh
    Rathi, Samruddhi
    Dhamande, Mithelesh
    JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCIENCE, 2022, 10 (07): : 76 - 81
  • [8] Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study
    Amin, Sarah
    Weber, Hans Peter
    Finkelman, Matthew
    El Rafie, Khaled
    Kudara, Yukio
    Papaspyridakos, Panos
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2017, 28 (11) : 1360 - 1367
  • [9] Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction
    Burzynski, Jennifer A.
    Firestone, Allen R.
    Beck, F. Michael
    Fields, Henry W., Jr.
    Deguchi, Toru
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2018, 153 (04) : 534 - 541
  • [10] LASTING IMPRESSIONS - PRITCHETT,VS
    BINDING, P
    NEW STATESMAN & SOCIETY, 1990, 3 (128): : 38 - 38