Limited evidence suggests complete arch digital scans are less time efficient than conventional impression

Area of Science:

• Dental Materials Science
• Prosthodontics
• Digital Dentistry

Background:

• Digital scanning systems are increasingly used for fabricating dental prostheses.
• Conventional impressions remain a common method for capturing dental anatomy.
• Comparing the efficiency and patient/clinician experience of these methods is crucial for clinical practice.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the time efficiency, clinical difficulty, and patient/clinician comfort of three intraoral digital scanning systems versus conventional polyether impression material for fabricating 3-unit fixed partial dentures.

Main Methods:

• A randomized controlled trial (RCT) with parallel design included 10 patients requiring posterior tooth-supported 3-unit fixed partial dentures (FPDs).
• Four impression techniques were evaluated: three digital scanners (Lava, iTero, Cerec) and conventional polyether impression material.
• Outcomes measured included time for scan/impression, number of remakes, and subjective ratings (Visual Analogue Scale) of patient and clinician comfort and time perception.

Main Results:

• Conventional impression was significantly less time-consuming (658 seconds) than digital scans (Cerec: 1776 seconds, iTero: 1107 seconds).
• Clinicians reported significantly less difficulty with conventional impressions (15) compared to Cerec (67) and iTero (43).
• Conventional impression was subjectively preferred by patients and clinicians for comfort and time perception, with fewer remakes needed compared to iTero and Lava.

Conclusions:

• Complete arch conventional impression is objectively more time-efficient and subjectively preferred by both clinicians and patients compared to the evaluated digital scanning systems.
• Digital scanning techniques requiring tooth powdering were found to be more difficult for clinicians than powderless digital scans and conventional impressions.
• Conventional impression techniques demonstrate advantages in efficiency and user experience for fabricating posterior tooth-supported FPDs within the limitations of this study.