4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      3D Digital Impression Systems Compared with Traditional Techniques in Dentistry: A Recent Data Systematic Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The advent of new technologies in the field of medicine and dentistry is giving improvements that lead the clinicians to have materials and procedures able to improve patients’ quality of life. In dentistry, the last digital techniques offer a fully digital computerized workflow that does not include the standard multiple traditional phases. The purpose of this study is to evaluate all clinical trials and clinical randomized trials related to the digital or dental impression technique in prosthetic dentistry trying to give the readers global information about advantages and disadvantages of each procedure. Data collection was conducted in the main scientific search engines, including articles from the last 10 years, in order to obtain results that do not concern obsolete impression techniques. Elsevier, Pubmed and Embase have been screened as sources for performing the research. The results data demonstrated how the working time appears to be improved with digital workflow, but without a significant result (P = 0.72596). The papers have been selected following the Population Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICO) question, which is related to the progress on dental impression materials and technique. The comparison between dentists or practitioners with respect to classic impression procedures, and students open to new device and digital techniques seem to be the key factor on the final impression technique choice. Surely, digital techniques will end up supplanting the analogical ones altogether, improving the quality of oral rehabilitations, the economics of dental practice and also the perception by our patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed

          Objective To develop ROBIS, a new tool for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews (rather than in primary studies). Study Design and Setting We used four-stage approach to develop ROBIS: define the scope, review the evidence base, hold a face-to-face meeting, and refine the tool through piloting. Results ROBIS is currently aimed at four broad categories of reviews mainly within health care settings: interventions, diagnosis, prognosis, and etiology. The target audience of ROBIS is primarily guideline developers, authors of overviews of systematic reviews (“reviews of reviews”), and review authors who might want to assess or avoid risk of bias in their reviews. The tool is completed in three phases: (1) assess relevance (optional), (2) identify concerns with the review process, and (3) judge risk of bias. Phase 2 covers four domains through which bias may be introduced into a systematic review: study eligibility criteria; identification and selection of studies; data collection and study appraisal; and synthesis and findings. Phase 3 assesses the overall risk of bias in the interpretation of review findings and whether this considered limitations identified in any of the phase 2 domains. Signaling questions are included to help judge concerns with the review process (phase 2) and the overall risk of bias in the review (phase 3); these questions flag aspects of review design related to the potential for bias and aim to help assessors judge risk of bias in the review process, results, and conclusions. Conclusions ROBIS is the first rigorously developed tool designed specifically to assess the risk of bias in systematic reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The PICO strategy for the research question construction and evidence search

            Evidence based practice is the use of the best scientific evidence to support the clinical decision making. The identification of the best evidence requires the construction of an appropriate research question and review of the literature. This article describes the use of the PICO strategy for the construction of the research question and bibliographical search.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes

              Background The purpose of this study was to compare two impression techniques from the perspective of patient preferences and treatment comfort. Methods Twenty-four (12 male, 12 female) subjects who had no previous experience with either conventional or digital impression participated in this study. Conventional impressions of maxillary and mandibular dental arches were taken with a polyether impression material (Impregum, 3 M ESPE), and bite registrations were made with polysiloxane bite registration material (Futar D, Kettenbach). Two weeks later, digital impressions and bite scans were performed using an intra-oral scanner (CEREC Omnicam, Sirona). Immediately after the impressions were made, the subjects’ attitudes, preferences and perceptions towards impression techniques were evaluated using a standardized questionnaire. The perceived source of stress was evaluated using the State-Trait Anxiety Scale. Processing steps of the impression techniques (tray selection, working time etc.) were recorded in seconds. Statistical analyses were performed with the Wilcoxon Rank test, and p < 0.05 was considered significant. Results There were significant differences among the groups (p < 0.05) in terms of total working time and processing steps. Patients stated that digital impressions were more comfortable than conventional techniques. Conclusions Digital impressions resulted in a more time-efficient technique than conventional impressions. Patients preferred the digital impression technique rather than conventional techniques.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Materials (Basel)
                Materials (Basel)
                materials
                Materials
                MDPI
                1996-1944
                23 April 2020
                April 2020
                : 13
                : 8
                : 1982
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphological and Functional Imaging, Messina University, 98100 Messina, Italy; lfiorillo@ 123456unime.it (L.F.); cesaredamico89@ 123456gmail.com (C.D.); dario796@ 123456outlook.it (D.G.); emanueleamantia@ 123456gmail.com (E.M.A.); gcervino@ 123456unime.it (G.C.)
                [2 ]Multidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical and Odontostomatological Specialties, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, 80100 Naples, Italy; luigi.laino@ 123456unicampania.it
                [3 ]Department of General Surgery and Medical Surgery Specialties, University of Catania, 95100 Catania, Italy; torecrimi@ 123456gmail.com (S.C.); paolacampagna91@ 123456gmail.com (P.C.); alberto.bianchi@ 123456unict.it (A.B.)
                [4 ]Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92354, USA; aherford@ 123456llu.edu
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: mcicciu@ 123456unime.it
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0335-4165
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1378-2588
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9374-2748
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4619-4691
                Article
                materials-13-01982
                10.3390/ma13081982
                7215909
                32340384
                8f9cdf2f-fd3f-4472-b820-b415a7eda335
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 27 March 2020
                : 21 April 2020
                Categories
                Review

                dental impression technique,dental impression materials,technology,dental,diagnosis,oral,prosthodontics,digital workflow

                Comments

                Comment on this article