Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science (구강회복응용과학지)

Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion (대한턱관절교합학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Questionnaire survey for the clinical trial participants who experienced both digital and conventional impression

디지털 인상법과 종래인상법을 동시에 경험한 임상시험자를 대상으로 한 설문지분석

  • Yang, Eunbee (Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Bongju (Dental Life Science Research Institute & Clinical Translational Research Center for Dental Science, Seoul National University Dental Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Jun Jae (Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Seung-Pyo (Department of Oral Anatomy, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lim, Young-Jun (Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • 양은비 (서울대학교 치의학대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 김봉주 (서울대학교 치과병원 치의생명과학연구원) ;
  • 이준재 (서울대학교 치의학대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 이승표 (서울대학교 치의학대학원 구강해부학교실) ;
  • 임영준 (서울대학교 치의학대학원 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2018.08.17
  • Accepted : 2018.10.02
  • Published : 2018.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the patients' perception, acceptance, and preference of the difference between a conventional impression and digital impression through questionnaire survey. Materials and Methods: Thirteen (6 male, 7 female) subjects who experienced both digital and conventional impression at the same day were enrolled in this study. Conventional impression were taken with polyvinylsiloxane and digital impression were performed using a newly developed intra-oral scanner. Immediately after the two impressions were made, a survey was conducted with the standardized questionnaires consisting of the following three categories; 1) general dental treatment 2) satisfaction of conventional impression 3) satisfaction of digital impression. The perceived source of satisfaction was evaluated using Likert scale. The distribution of the answers was assessed by percentages and statistical analyses were performed with the paired t-test, and P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: There were significant differences of the overall satisfaction between two impression methods (P < 0.05). Digital impression showed high satisfaction in less shortness of breath and odor to participants compared to conventional impression. The use of an oral scanner resulted in a discomfort of TMJ due to prolonged mouth opening and in lower score of the scanner tip size. Conclusion: It was confirmed that the preference for the digital impression using intraoral scanner is higher than the conventional impression. Most survey participants said they would recommend the digital impression to others and said they preferred it for future prosthetic treatment.

목적: 이 연구의 목적은 종래형 인상채득 방법과 디지털 인상채득 방법에 대한 환자들의 느낌, 만족도와 선호도를 설문조사를 통해 비교분석하는 것이다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 이 연구에 참여한 13명의 임상시험자(남자 6명, 여자 7명)는 종래형 인상채득 방법과 디지털 인상채득 방법을 동일에 경험하였다. 종래형 인상채득방법은 폴리비닐실록산(PVS) 인상재를 사용하였고, 디지털 인상채득은 새로 개발된 구강스캐너를 사용하였다. 두 종류의 인상채득을 시행한 직후 바로 설문조사를 진행하였고, 설문조사지는 다음의 세 개의 범주로 구성되었다; 1) 일반적인 치과 진료에 관해 2) 종래형 인상채득방법에 대한 만족도 3) 디지털 인상채득 방법에 대한 만족도. 만족도에 대한 측정은 Likert 척도를 사용하여 평가되었다. 설문조사 응답 중 분포에 관한 것은 백분율을 사용하였고, 비교 만족도에 유의성에 대한 통계분석은 paired t-test 검정을 사용하였으며 통계적 유의수준은 P < 0.05 로 하였다. 결과: 두 가지 인상채득 방법에 대한 전반적인 만족도에서 유의미한 차이가 있었다(P < 0.05). 디지털 인상채득방식이 숨쉬기, 냄새에 대한 항목에서 종래의 인상채득방법에 비해 높은 만족도를 보였다. 다만 구강 스캐너를 사용했을 때 스캐너의 팁 사이즈가 크고 입을 오래 벌리고 있어야 하는 문제로 인해 TMJ에 불편감을 야기했다. 결론: 구강스캐너를 사용하는 디지털 인상채득 방법이 종래의 인상채득방법에 비하여 더 선호되는 것을 확인하였다. 대부분의 조사에서 참가자들이 디지털 인상채득방법을 타인에게 추천할 의향이 있으며, 다음 보철 치료 시에도 디지털 인상채득 방법을 선택할 것이라고 했다.

Keywords

References

  1. Morey EF. Dimensional accuracy of small gold alloy castings. Part 1. A brief history and the behaviour of inlay waxes. Aust Dent J 1991;36:302-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.1991.tb00727.x
  2. Barbosa GA, Simamoto Junior PC, Fernandes Neto AJ, de Mattos Mda G, Neves FD. Prosthetic laboratory influence on the vertical misfit at the implant/UCLA abutment interface. Braz Dent J 2007;18:139-43. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402007000200010
  3. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 2008;204:505-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.350
  4. Davidowitz G, Kotick PG. The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2011;55:559-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2011.02.011
  5. Prudente MS, Davi LR, Nabbout KO, Prado CJ, Pereira LM, Zancope K, Neves FD. Influence of scanner, powder application, and adjustments on CAD-CAM crown misfit. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:377-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.03.024
  6. Takeuchi Y, Koizumi H, Furuchi M, Sato Y, Ohkubo C, Matsumura H. Use of digital impression systems with intraoral scanners for fabricating restorations and fixed dental prostheses. J Oral Sci 2018;60:1-7. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.17-0444
  7. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1759-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0864-4
  8. Zhang F, Suh KJ, Lee KM. Validity of Intraoral Scans Compared with Plaster Models: An In-Vivo Comparison of Dental Measurements and 3D Surface Analysis. PLoS One 2016;11:e0157713. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157713
  9. Kim KM. Likert scale. Korean J Fam Med 2011;32:1-2. https://doi.org/10.4082/kjfm.2011.32.1.1
  10. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-10
  11. Lee SJ, Macarthur RX 4th, Gallucci GO. An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2013;110:420-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.06.012
  12. Joda T, Lenherr P, Dedem P, Kovaltschuk I, Bragger U, Zitzmann NU. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1318-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12982
  13. Schepke U, Meijer HJ, Kerdijk W, Cune MS. Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for singleunit premolar implant crowns: Operating time and patient preference. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:403-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.003
  14. Benic GI, Muhlemann S, Fehmer V, Hammerle CH, Sailer I. Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part I: digital versus conventional unilateral impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:777-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.05.007
  15. Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:1113-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12234