TODENTJ-25-03-2019_TODENTJ-12-118 1553507289 Bentham Open doi@benthamopen.net Bentham Open The Open Dentistry Journal TODENTJ 1874-2106 01 31 2018 12 1 Alessandro Mangano Matteo Beretta Giuseppe Luongo Carlo Mangano Francesco Mangano Objective: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: Digital impressions resulted the most accepted and comfortable impression technique in young orthodontic patients, when compared to conventional techniques. 01 31 2018 118 124 TODENTJ-12-118 1 10.2174/crossmark_policy opendentistryjournal.com benthamopen.com true Peer Reviewed Single blind Checked with iThenticate 2017-11-17 2017-12-20 2018-01-05 2018-01-31 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode 10.2174/1874210601812010118 1553507289 https://opendentistryjournal.com/VOLUME/12/PAGE/118/ https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-118/TODENTJ-12-118.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-118/TODENTJ-12-118.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-118/TODENTJ-12-118.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-118/TODENTJ-12-118.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-118/TODENTJ-12-118.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-118/TODENTJ-12-118.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-118/TODENTJ-12-118.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-118/TODENTJ-12-118.xml J. Acupunct. Meridian Stud. Zotelli V.L. 7 318 2014 10.1016/j.jams.2014.04.009 Zotelli VL, Grillo CM, de Sousa MdaL. Nausea control by needling at acupuncture point Neiguan (PC6) during an intraoral impression-taking procedure. J Acupunct Meridian Stud 2014; 7 (6) : 318-23. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. Grünheid T. 146 673 2014 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023 Grünheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: An assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 146 (5) : 673-82. BMC Oral Health Imburgia M. 17 92 2017 10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4 Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: A comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2017; 17 (1) : 92. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. Grauer D. 140 433 2011 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.01.020 Grauer D, Proffit WR. Accuracy in tooth positioning with a fully customized lingual orthodontic appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140 (3) : 433-43. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. Christensen G.J. 140 1301 2009 10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0054 Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 2009; 140 (10) : 1301-4. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants Joda T. 30 1047 2015 10.11607/jomi.3963 Joda T, Brägger U. Time-efficiency analysis comparing digital and conventional workflows for implant crowns: A prospective clinical crossover trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 30 (5) : 1047-53. BMC Oral Health Yuzbasioglu E. 14 10 2014 10.1186/1472-6831-14-10 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. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. Burhardt L. 150 261 2016 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.12.027 Burhardt L, Livas C, Kerdijk W, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y. Treatment comfort, time perception, and preference for conventional and digital impression techniques: A comparative study in young patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 150 (2) : 261-7. PLoS One Mangano F.G. 11 e0163107 2016 10.1371/journal.pone.0163107 Mangano FG, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, Mijiritsky E, Mangano C. Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: A comparative in vitro study. PLoS One 2016; 11 (9) : e0163107. Int. J. Comput. Dent. Ender A. 16 11 2013 Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 2013; 16 (1) : 11-21. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. van der Meer W.J. 147 288 2016 10.1016/j.adaj.2015.11.018 van der Meer WJ, Vissink A, Ren Y. Full 3-dimensional digital workflow for multicomponent dental appliances: A proof of concept. J Am Dent Assoc 2016; 147 (4) : 288-91. Clin. Oral Implants Res. Wismeijer D. 25 1113 2014 10.1111/clr.12234 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 (10) : 1113-8. Pediatr. Dent. Kaakko T. 25 357 2003 Kaakko T, Horn MT, Weinstein P, Kaufman E, Leggott P, Coldwell SE. The influence of sequence of impressions on children’s anxiety and discomfort. Pediatr Dent 2003; 25 (4) : 357-64. Dent. Update Dickinson C.M. 32 26 2005 10.12968/denu.2005.32.1.26 Dickinson CM, Fiske J. A review of gagging problems in dentistry: I. Aetiology and classification. Dent Update 2005; 32 (1) : 26-28, 31-32. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. Ramsay D.S. 114 178 1987 10.14219/jada.archive.1987.0023 Ramsay DS, Weinstein P, Milgrom P, Getz T. Problematic gagging: Principles of treatment. J Am Dent Assoc 1987; 114 (2) : 178-83.