Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Oral Health
Published in: BMC Oral Health 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Changes in views on digital intraoral scanners among dental hygienists after training in digital impression taking

Authors: Hye-Ran Park, Ji-Man Park, Youn-Sic Chun, Kkot-Nim Lee, Minji Kim

Published in: BMC Oral Health | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Backgrounds

Despite the rapid development of digital dentistry, the use of digital intraoral scanners remains limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the changes in views on intraoral scanners among dental hygienists after training.

Methods

Thirty-four dental hygienists with >3 years of clinical experience participated and were divided into 2 groups : iTero and Trios groups. Participants of each group practiced the usage of both intraoral scanners, for total 12 times over 4 sessions, Questionnaires were given to participants at two different times; prior to and after the completion of the training sessions. The parameters of questionnaires included on difficulty of use, patient discomfort, awareness, preference, and clinical usefulness of intraoral scanners and comparison of two types of scanners.

Results

Upon the completion of the training, both iTero and Trios groups gave positive feedback on anticipated accuracy, efficiency, and clinical usefulness. More participants of the iTero group responded that the level of difficulty of use and patient discomfort was greater than Trios. Both groups preferred Trios for its clinical usefulness.

Conclusions

The perceptions of dental hygienists on usage of intraoral scanner and digital impression improved positively with the training. The participants favored Trios over iTero in terms of difficulty of use , patient comfort, and clinical usefulness. This study showed that appropriate training could change the views on the efficiency of intraoral scanners positively among dental hygienists.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Nedelcu RG, Persson AS. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(6):1461–71.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent. 2013;16(1):11–21.PubMed
3.
Anh JW, Park JM, Chun YS, Kim MA, Kim MJ. A comparison on the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by two different digital intraoral scanners: Effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction. Korean J Orthod 2015, In press.
4.
Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(6):1687–94.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R, Zhurov AI. A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod. 2008;35(3):191–201.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Lee H, Ercoli C, Funkenbusch PD, Feng C. Effect of subgingival depth of implant placement on the dimensional accuracy of the implant impression: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;99(2):107–13.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Walker MP, Ries D, Borello B. Implant cast accuracy as a function of impression techniques and impression material viscosity. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23:669–74.PubMed
8.
Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100(4):285–91.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Wee AG. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83(3):323–31.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Brosky ME, Pesun IJ, Lowder PD, Delong R, Hodges JS. Laser digitization of casts to determine the effect of tray selection and cast formation technique on accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87(2):204–9.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Burns J, Palmer R, Howe L, Wilson R. Accuracy of open tray implant impressions: an in vitro comparison of stock versus custom trays. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89(3):250–5.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Ceyhan JA, Johnson GH, Lepe X. The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(2):143–9.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Vigolo P, Fonzi F, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. An evaluation of impression techniques for multiple internal connection implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;92(5):470–6.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009;140(10):1301–4.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:10–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients’ preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;25(7):1–6.
17.
Herbst D, Nel JC, Driessen CH, Becker PJ. Evaluation of impression accuracy for osseointegrated implant supported superstructures. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83(5):555–61.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Choi HS, Kim SH. The Application of CAD/CAM in Dentistry. J Kor Dent Assoc. 2012;50:110–7.
19.
Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J. 2009;28(1):44–56.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(1):111–5.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Lee SJ, Macarthur RX, Gallucci GO. An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;110(5):420–3.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Kugel G. Impression-taking: conventional methods remain steadfast as digital technology progresses. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2014;35(3):202–3.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Changes in views on digital intraoral scanners among dental hygienists after training in digital impression taking
Authors
Hye-Ran Park
Ji-Man Park
Youn-Sic Chun
Kkot-Nim Lee
Minji Kim
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Oral Health / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6831
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-015-0140-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Oral Health 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of two nickel-titanium rotary systems using cone beam computed tomography

Research article

Physical properties and biocompatibility of an injectable calcium-silicate-based root canal sealer: in vitro and in vivo study

Research article

Change of periodontal inflammatory indicators through a 4-week weight control intervention including caloric restriction and exercise training in young Koreans: a pilot study

Case report

Antifungal susceptibility and phenotypic characterization of oral isolates of a black fungus from a nasopharyngeal carcinoma patient under radiotherapy

Research article

The effect of motivational interviewing on oral healthcare knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of parents and caregivers of preschool children: an exploratory cluster randomised controlled study

Research article

Development of a polymerase chain reaction assay for the rapid detection of the oral pathogenic bacterium, Selenomonas noxia