Article Sidebar

pdf
Date Published: 29/10/2024
Abstract Views: 70
Views pdf: 46
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v543i3.11569
Issue
Vol. 543 No. 3 (2024)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Phạm, M. C., Nguyễn, H. N., & Trần, H. L. (2024). CONVENTIONAL AND DIGITAL IMPRESSION PROCEDURES IN SINGLE-TOOTH IMPLANT: A COMPARISON OF TREATMENT TIME AND PATIENT SATISFACTION. Vietnam Medical Journal, 543(3). https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v543i3.11569

CONVENTIONAL AND DIGITAL IMPRESSION PROCEDURES IN SINGLE-TOOTH IMPLANT: A COMPARISON OF TREATMENT TIME AND PATIENT SATISFACTION

Minh Cường Phạm, Hoàng Nam Nguyễn, Hùng Lâm Trần

Main Article Content

Abstract

Background: This study aims to compare the treatment time and patient’s satisfaction between digital impression techniques and conventional impression techniques in single-tooth implant. Materials and methods: A controlled study was conducted on 22 patients with single-tooth loss in the posterior arch had undergone implant replacement. Impressions were taken using both conventional (polyvinyl siloxane) and digital (3Shape Trios 3 Move scanner) methods. Results: The digital impression technique significantly reduced treatment time compared to the conventional method. The overall time and individual steps in the digital process were significantly shorter than the conventional process (p < 0.001). The prosthetic trial time showed no significant difference between the two methods (p > 0.05). Patients who underwent digital impressions felt significantly more satisfied and comfortable (p < 0.01). Conclusion: Digital impressions offer greater efficiency in treatment time and enhance patient’s satisfaction compared to conventional methods, confirming the advantages of digital techniques in single-implant prosthetics.

Article Details

Keywords

Single-implant, conventional impression, digital impression, treatment time, satisfaction.

References

1. Đoàn Minh Trí, Đỗ Thị Kim Anh. So sánh lấy dấu theo phương pháp kỹ thuật số và phương pháp thường quy. Tạp chí Y Học thành phố Hồ Chí Minh. 2018; PB22(2):112-117.
2. Ahmed S., Hawsah A., Rustom R., et al. Digital impressions versus conventional impressions in prosthodontics: A systematic review. Cureus. 2024; 16(1):e51537.
3. Bosoni C., Nieri M., Franceschi D., et al. Comparison between digital and conventional impression techniques in children on preference, time and comfort: A crossover randomized controlled trial. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2023; 26(4):585-590.
4. D’Ambrosio F., Giordano F., Sangiovanni G., Di Palo M.P., Amato M. Conventional versus digital dental impression techniques: What is the future? An umbrella review. Prosthesis. 2023; 5(3):851-875.
5. Gjelvold B., Chrcanovic B.R., Korduner E.K., Collin-Bagewitz I., Kisch J. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique Compared to Conventional Impression Technique. A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Prosthodont. 2016; 25(4):282-287.
6. Gogushev K., Abadjiev M. Conventional vs digital impression technique for manufacturing of three-unit zirconia bridges: Clinical time efficiency. J of IMAB. 2021; 27(2):3765-3771.
7. Joda T., Lenherr P., Dedem P., et al. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28(10):1318-1323.
8. Lee S.J., Gallucci G.O. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24(1):111-115.
9. Mühlemann S., Greter E.A., Park J.M., Hämmerle C.H.F., Thoma D.S. Precision of digital implant models compared to conventional implant models for posterior single implant crowns: A within-subject comparison. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29(9):931-936.
10. Sang J Lee và các cộng sự. (2022), "A clinical study comparing digital scanning and conventional impression making for implant-supported prostheses: A crossover clinical trial", The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 128(1), tr. 42-48.