Procedure Time and Students' Perception Comparing Full Arch Digital Scans with Conventional Impressions: A Cross-Over Randomized Experimental Trial

Methods Ninety-six dental students each prepared tooth #36 for an all-ceramic crown on typodont models and were then randomly assigned into either group A: performed digital scan first, or Group B: performed conventional impression first. Procedure time was recorded for both. Immediately following each procedure, students indicated their perceived procedure difficulty. After exposure to both techniques, they selected their preferred one. Results There was a statistically significant difference between the mean procedure time of both techniques (P < 0.0001), where students spent 663.76 ± 442.50 seconds to complete the conventional impression and 293.32 ± 181.49 seconds to complete the digital scan. Females were significantly faster in completing the conventional impression compared to males. On the contrary, male students were faster in digital scanning than female students. There were no carryover effects in the duration and the initially performed procedure. 76% (73 of 96) of participants preferred digital scanning with no statistical significance shown between the preferred and initially performed procedure. Participants perceived conventional impressions to be more difficult than digital scans. There was a weak positive correlation between the VAS score and the procedure time for the digital technique (R = 0.25) and a moderate positive correlation for the conventional technique (R = 0.45). Conclusions The digital technique was preferred and perceived as easier than the conventional among undergraduate dental students with no impression-making experience, suggesting their readiness for new technology uptake. However, no significant correlation was found between the initially performed procedure and preference.

[1]  B. Yılmaz,et al.  Effect of Impression Technique and Operator Experience on Impression Time and Operator-Reported Outcomes. , 2021, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[2]  J. Hardouin,et al.  Comparative assessment of complete-coverage, fixed tooth-supported prostheses fabricated from digital scans or conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2020, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[3]  Clarine Cheah,et al.  The dentist will scan you now: the next generation of digital-savvy graduates. , 2020, European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe.

[4]  H. Bilir,et al.  Comparison of Digital and Conventional Impression Methods by Preclinical Students: Efficiency and Future Expectations , 2020, Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry.

[5]  G. Mendonça,et al.  Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans. , 2020, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[6]  Gowri Sivaramakrishnan,et al.  Patient preference and operating time for digital versus conventional impressions: A Network Meta-analysis. , 2019, Australian dental journal.

[7]  K. Weimer,et al.  Students’ perspectives on the use of digital versus conventional dental impression techniques in orthodontics , 2019, BMC Medical Education.

[8]  N. Z. Baba,et al.  Comparison of the Fit of Lithium Disilicate Crowns made from Conventional, Digital, or Conventional/Digital Techniques , 2018, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[9]  L. Bohner,et al.  Patient outcomes and procedure working time for digital versus conventional impressions: A systematic review , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[10]  S. Logozzo,et al.  Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature , 2017, BMC oral health.

[11]  T. Joda,et al.  Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial , 2017, Clinical oral implants research.

[12]  T. Joda,et al.  Dental Students' Perceptions of Digital and Conventional Impression Techniques: A Randomized Controlled Trial. , 2017, Journal of dental education.

[13]  Cortino Sukotjo,et al.  Integration of Digital Dentistry into a Predoctoral Implant Program: Program Description, Rationale, and Utilization Trends. , 2017, Journal of dental education.

[14]  W. Scarfe,et al.  Comparison of digital scanning and polyvinyl siloxane impression techniques by dental students: instructional efficiency and attitudes towards technology , 2017, European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe.

[15]  Ricarda Steinmayr,et al.  Academic Competencies: Their Interrelatedness and Gender Differences at Their High End , 2017 .

[16]  Amit Kumar,et al.  Association Between Dental Students' Emotional Intelligence and Academic Performance: A Study at Six Dental Colleges in India. , 2016, Journal of dental education.

[17]  M. Zimmermanna,et al.  Intraoral scanning systems – a current overview , 2015 .

[18]  E. Yuzbasioglu,et al.  Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes , 2014, BMC oral health.

[19]  Sang J. Lee,et al.  An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions. , 2013, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[20]  Sang J. Lee,et al.  Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. , 2013, Clinical oral implants research.

[21]  N. Suksudaj What factors influence learning of psychomotor skills by dental students , 2010 .

[22]  E. Kay,et al.  Designing a dental curriculum for the twenty-first century , 2009, BDJ.

[23]  Werner H. Moörmann The evolution of the CEREC system , 2006 .

[24]  W. Mörmann The evolution of the CEREC system. , 2006, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[25]  R. Aitken,et al.  A Growing Edge of Measurement of Feelings [Abridged] , 1969 .

[26]  R. Aitken Measurement of feelings using visual analogue scales. , 1969, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine.