Conventional Vs Digital Impressions: Acceptability, Treatment Comfort and Stress Among Young Orthodontic Patients
Alessandro Mangano1, *, Matteo Beretta2, Giuseppe Luongo3, Carlo Mangano4, Francesco Mangano5
Identifiers and Pagination:Year: 2018
Issue: Suppl-1, M8
First Page: 118
Last Page: 124
Publisher Id: TODENTJ-12-118
Article History:Received Date: 17/11/2017
Revision Received Date: 20/12/2017
Acceptance Date: 05/01/2018
Electronic publication date: 31/01/2018
Collection year: 2018
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
The objective of the present study was to compare patients’ acceptability, comfort and stress with conventional and digital impressions.
Materials and Methods:
Thirty young orthodontic patients (15 males and 15 females) who had no previous experience of impressions were enrolled in this study. Conventional impressions for orthodontic study models of the dental arches were taken using an alginate impression material (Hydrogum®, Zhermack Spa, Badia Polesine, Rovigo, Italy). Fifteen days later, digital impressions of both arches were acquired using an intraoral scanner (CS3600®, Carestream Dental, Rochester, NY, USA). Immediately after impression taking, patients’ acceptability, comfort and stress were measured using two questionnaires and the State anxiety scale.
Data showed no difference in terms of anxiety and stress; however, patients preferred the use of digital impressions systems instead of conventional impression techniques. Alginate impressions resulted as fast as digital impressions.
Digital impressions resulted the most accepted and comfortable impression technique in young orthodontic patients, when compared to conventional techniques.