When it comes to implant impression techniques, is digital intraoral scanning (IOS) more efficient than the the conventional method? And which technique is more difficult to apply? This interesting question was the subject of a recent randomized controlled trial to analyze implant impression techniques applying intraoral scanning (IOS) and the conventional method according to time efficiency, difficulty, and operator’s preference.1
The study concluded:
For single-implant sites, the quadrant-like intraoral scanning (IOS) was more time efficient than the conventional full-arch impression technique in a phantom head simulating standardized optimal conditions. A high level of acceptance for IOS was observed among students and dentists. (76% of the students preferred IOS, 48% of the dentists were favoring conventional impressions, and 26% each IOS and either technique.)1
What has been your experience when comparing the efficiency and difficulty between digital and conventional, and what is your preference?
Read the Full Abstract Here
1. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Sep 5. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator’s preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial.
.Joda T, et al.