Digital versus conventional impression method in children: Comfort, preference and time

dc.authorid Yilmaz, Hakan/0000-0002-9564-6212
dc.authorid AYDIN, Merve Nur/0000-0001-9388-8069
dc.authorscopusid 57210447211
dc.authorscopusid 57195517021
dc.authorwosid YILMAZ, HAKAN/JVO-9077-2024
dc.authorwosid Yilmaz, Hakan/U-1749-2018
dc.contributor.author Yilmaz, Hakan
dc.contributor.author Aydin, Merve Nur
dc.date.accessioned 2024-05-25T11:40:00Z
dc.date.available 2024-05-25T11:40:00Z
dc.date.issued 2019
dc.department Okan University en_US
dc.department-temp [Yilmaz, Hakan] Istanbul Okan Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Orthodont, Istanbul, Turkey; [Aydin, Merve Nur] Istanbul Okan Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Pediat Dent, Istanbul, Turkey en_US
dc.description Yilmaz, Hakan/0000-0002-9564-6212; AYDIN, Merve Nur/0000-0001-9388-8069 en_US
dc.description.abstract Background: The comfortness and effectiveness of digital and conventional impression methods in children have not yet been compared. Aim: To assess the digital and conventional impression methods in children in terms of comfort, preference, and the time required to take impressions. Design: Digital impressions were taken by using an intraoral scanner, and conventional impressions were taken by using alginate from 28 patients by the same operator. In each impression-taking-process, comfort was assessed by both the children and the clinician, and the chairside times were written. Student's t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analyses, and P <.05 was considered to be significant. Results: The digital impression was considered to be more comfortable in the assessments by both the children and the clinician (P <.001). The total time the digital impression took was 465.89 +/- 76.71 second(s) while that of the conventional impression was 450.25 +/- 64.08 s when the chairside times of the two impression methods were compared. There was no statistically significant difference (P =.41). Conclusion: The digital impression method compared with the conventional impression method was found to be both more comfortable and preferable by the children, but there was no difference in terms of the time required to take impressions. en_US
dc.identifier.citationcount 26
dc.identifier.doi 10.1111/ipd.12566
dc.identifier.endpage 735 en_US
dc.identifier.issn 0960-7439
dc.identifier.issn 1365-263X
dc.identifier.issue 6 en_US
dc.identifier.pmid 31348834
dc.identifier.scopus 2-s2.0-85070778678
dc.identifier.scopusquality Q1
dc.identifier.startpage 728 en_US
dc.identifier.uri https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12566
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14517/1388
dc.identifier.volume 29 en_US
dc.identifier.wos WOS:000489087600006
dc.identifier.wosquality Q1
dc.language.iso en
dc.publisher Wiley en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategory Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı en_US
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess en_US
dc.scopus.citedbyCount 34
dc.subject children en_US
dc.subject clinical efficiency en_US
dc.subject digital impression en_US
dc.subject patient comfort en_US
dc.title Digital versus conventional impression method in children: Comfort, preference and time en_US
dc.type Article en_US
dc.wos.citedbyCount 29

Files