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
The International Journal of Prosthodontics



Forgotten password?


Int J Prosthodont 31 (2018), No. 1     8. Feb. 2018
Int J Prosthodont 31 (2018), No. 1  (08.02.2018)

Page 55-59, doi:10.11607/ijp.5405, PubMed:29145527

Evaluation of Operating Time and Patient Perception Using Conventional Impression Taking and Intraoral Scanning for Crown Manufacture: A Split-Mouth, Randomized Clinical Study
Haddadi, Yasser / Bahrami, Golnosh / Isidor, Flemming
Purpose: To compare operating time and patient perception of conventional impression (CI) taking and intraoral scanning (IOS) for manufacture of a tooth-supported crown.
Materials and Methods: A total of 19 patients needing indirect full-coverage restorations fitting the requirements for a split-mouth design were recruited. Each patient received two lithium disilicate crowns, one manufactured from CI taking and one from IOS. Both teeth were prepared following the manufacturers' recommendations. For both impression techniques, two retraction cords soaked in 15% ferric sulphate were used for tissue management. CIs were taken in a full-arch metallic tray using one-step, two-viscosity technique with polyvinyl siloxane silicone. The operating time for each step of the two impression methods was registered. Patient perception associated with each method was scored using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS), with 100 indicating maximum discomfort.
Results: Median total operating time for CI taking was 15:47 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 15:18 to 17:30), and for IOS was 5:05 minutes (IQR 4:35 to 5:23). The median VAS score for patient perception was 73 (IQR 16 to 89) for CI taking and 6 (IQR 2 to 9) for IOS. The differences between the two groups were statistically significant (P < .05) for both parameters.
Conclusion: IOS was less time consuming than CI taking, and patient perception was in favor of IOS.