An Updated Comparison of Current Impression Techniques Regarding Time, Comfort, Anxiety, and Preference: A Randomized Crossover Trial

dc.authorscopusid57210447211
dc.authorscopusid57578626100
dc.authorscopusid57195517021
dc.contributor.authorYılmaz,H.
dc.contributor.authorKonca,F.A.
dc.contributor.authorAydın,M.N.
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-25T12:34:05Z
dc.date.available2024-05-25T12:34:05Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.departmentOkan Universityen_US
dc.department-tempYılmaz H., Department of Orthodontics, Yeditepe University Faculty of Dentistry, İstanbul, Turkey; Konca F.A., Department of Orthodontics, Biruni University Faculty of Dentistry, İstanbul, Turkey; Aydın M.N., Department of Paediatric Dentistry, İstanbul Okan University Faculty of Dentistry, İstanbul, Turkeyen_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare digital and conventional impressions in terms of impression time, and comfort, anxiety, and preference of the patients. Methods: Digital scans (Trios 3 Cart) and conventional impressions (irreversible hydrocolloid material, hand-mixed) were randomly performed on 39 patients by a single experienced operator at 14-21-day intervals (crossover design). The impression time, comfort score with the visual analog scale, anxiety level with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and preference with a questionnaire, were recorded. The 2 techniques were compared with the independent t-test in terms of time, comfort, and anxiety. Patient–operator assessment and time–comfort relationship were analyzed using Pearson’s correlation test. Results: No statistical difference was found between the 2 impression techniques in terms of time (P = .231). Both the operators’ and patients’ comfort scores showed that the digital technique was found to be more comfortable (P < .001). There was no statistical difference between the 2 techniques with regard to anxiety (P = .668). The patients’ and operators’ comfort scores showed a strong correlation (P < .001), but no correlation was found between comfort and time (P > .05). Conclusion: Digital scanning and conventional dental impression were similar in terms of impression time and anxiety of patients. However, patients were more satisfied with the digital technique, and preferred it. © Copyright 2021 by Turkish Orthodontic Society - Available online at turkjorthod.orgen_US
dc.identifier.citation1
dc.identifier.doi10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2021.21025
dc.identifier.endpage233en_US
dc.identifier.issn2528-9659
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85128326377
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage227en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2021.21025
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14517/2539
dc.identifier.volume34en_US
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherAVESen_US
dc.relation.ispartofTurkish Journal of Orthodonticsen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectclinical efficiencyen_US
dc.subjectdental anxietyen_US
dc.subjectdental impressionen_US
dc.subjectIntraoral scanneren_US
dc.subjectpatient comforten_US
dc.titleAn Updated Comparison of Current Impression Techniques Regarding Time, Comfort, Anxiety, and Preference: A Randomized Crossover Trialen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files