We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Chinese Journal of Dental Research
Chin J Dent Res 22 (2019), No. 1     28. Feb. 2019
Chin J Dent Res 22 (2019), No. 1  (28.02.2019)

Page 21-28, doi:10.3290/j.cjdr.a41771, PubMed:30746529


Clinical Efficiency and Patient Preference of Immediate Digital Impression after Implant Placement for Single Implant-Supported Crown
Guo, Dan Ni / Liu, Yu Shu / Pan, Shao Xia / Wang, Peng Fei / Wang, Bing / Liu, Jian Zhang / Gao, Wen Hui / Zhou, Yong Sheng
Objective: To evaluate the time efficiency and patient preference of three impression techniques by comparing immediate digital impression performed directly after implantation with regular digital impression and conventional implant impression performed 3 months after implantation.
Methods: Twenty consecutive patients with a missing single molar or premolar who received implant treatment were recruited into this prospective self-controlled clinical trial. Three different impression techniques were performed after implant surgery on all the participants: An intraoral scanning (IOS) impression performed immediately after implant placement (immediate digital impression) was compared with a regular digital impression and a classic polyether impression (conventional implant impression) performed 3 months after implant surgery. The operating time of each impression technique was recorded. Patients were asked to complete a visual analogue scale (VAS) questionnaire on their perception of the three techniques to describe their satisfaction and preference. Statistical analyses were performed with the Wilcoxon signed rank test.
Results: The clinical time of the immediate digital impression (10.97 ± 2.1 min) was significantly shorter than that of the conventional implant impression (14.45 ± 3.0 min) (P < 0.05). The mean time of the immediate digital impression (10.97 ± 2.1 min) was statistically the same as that of the regular digital impression (10.23 ± 2.7 min) (P > 0.05). Participants' subjective evaluation indicated higher satisfaction with the immediate digital impression than with the regular digital impression and the conventional implant impression.
Conclusion: The immediate digital impression was more efficient than the conventional implant impression and had the same efficiency as the regular digital impression. Among the three impression techniques, the participants showed higher satisfaction with the immediate digital impression.

Keywords: impression, digital, dental implant, computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)