Digital versus conventional surgical guide fabrication: A randomized crossover study on operator preference, difficulty, effectiveness, and operating time

AIM

If surgical guide fabrication is introduced in a dental education program, a digital and conventional workflow can be used. This study evaluated operator preference, perceived difficulty and effectiveness and operating time of both fabrication methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty participants in a university setting (students, n = 20; dentists, n = 20) with varying levels of dental experience, but no experience in surgical guide fabrication, were randomly assigned to consecutively fabricate surgical guides on a standardized training model, with either the digital or conventional workflow first. The operating time was measured, and operator preference and the perception of difficulty and effectiveness were assessed with a questionnaire. T tests were used for statistical analysis (α = .05).

RESULT

Of the students, 95% preferred the digital workflow and of the dentists 70%. The perceived difficulty of the digital workflow was significantly lower than the conventional workflow in the student group. Both groups perceived the digital workflow to be more effective. The mean operating time (mm:ss) amounted 12:34 ± 2:24 (students) and 18:07 ± 6:03 (dentists) for the digital, and 22:20 ± 3:59 (students) and 20:16 ± 4:03 (dentists) for the conventional workflow.

CONCLUSION

Both students and dentists prefer the digital workflow for surgical guide fabrication. Students perceive the digital workflow as less difficult and more effective than the conventional workflow. The operating time for surgical guide fabrication is shorter with a digital workflow. This study indicates that digital fabrication techniques for surgical guides are preferred to be incorporated into the dental curriculum to teach students about treatment planning in implant dentistry.

The dentist will scan you now: The next generation of digital-savvy graduates

INTRODUCTION

Undergraduate dental curriculum consisting of digital tools is essential in today's era of modern dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate final-year undergraduate dental students' perception of using intraoral scanners and the feasibility of increasing exposure to intraoral scanners in their undergraduate programme.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty students volunteered to complete one maxillary conventional and optical impression (TRIOS 3, 3Shape A/S). Questionnaires were used to assess their familiarity, perceived confidence levels, difficulties and user-friendliness of each technique using a visual analogue scale prior to and after experiencing each impression technique.

RESULTS

Students felt more familiar with conventional (C) than digital (D) impressions (P = .00). Their pre-confidence level was also higher with the conventional method (C: 80.9 ± 15.5; D: 39.6 ± 25.5); however, the post-confidence level significantly increased for the digital impression technique (P = .00). Participants perceived conventional technique to be easier (P = .02) and faster than optical impressions (P = .03). User-friendliness of the intraoral scanner scored moderate (67.7 ± 22.9). The difference in the mean total working time was not significant (P = .05). Forty per cent of participants indicated that they preferred using the digital impression technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Although final-year undergraduate students still perceived the conventional impression technique to be easier and faster than digital scanning, there was a significant increase in the level of confidence by this cohort after only one occasion of clinical optical impressions. Undergraduate dental students are ready to uptake new technology, and it should be strongly considered to incorporate more digital scanning during their training.

Effect of Impression Technique and Operator Experience on Impression Time and Operator-Reported Outcomes

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of impression technique (conventional preliminary alginate and digital scan) and operator experience in impression making (experienced in digital and conventional, experienced in conventional and inexperienced in digital, and inexperienced in conventional and digital) on impression time, satisfaction and stress levels, and the preference of the operators.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One patient was assigned for each of the 60 operators, who were experienced in impression techniques at different levels (Group 1: experienced in conventional and digital, Group 2: experienced in conventional and inexperienced in digital, Group 3: inexperienced in conventional and digital). They made conventional impressions (irreversible hydrocolloid) and digital scans (Trios 3) from the same patient. The impression times were recorded at each step (patient registration, maxillary arch, mandibular arch, and bite registration) and in total. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used for the operator satisfaction for applicability, comfort, and hygiene; the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory form (STAI-TX1) was used for stress, and a questionnaire was completed to measure the operator's impression preference. The data were analyzed with a 2-way ANOVA and Chi-square test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

A significant interaction was found between the operator experience in impression making and the impression technique on time for maxillary and mandibular arch impressions and total time (p ≤ 0.002). Operator experience and impression technique interaction had a significant effect on comfort and average VAS scores (p ≤ 0.016). Whereas, no significant effect of this interaction was found on stress (p ≥ 0.195). Operator experience in impression making had a significant effect on applicability (p < 0.001), and the impression technique had a significant effect on hygiene VAS scores (p < 0.001). Operators in Group 1 and Group 3 preferred the digital scans, however, operators in Group 2 had no preference (p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

Operator experience in impression making and impression technique had varying effects on clinician's impression time, comfort, applicability, hygiene, and preference. Operators needed less time for the impressions they were experienced with. Operator stress level was not affected by the operator experience in impression making and the impression technique. Dental students and operators experienced in both techniques were satisfied with the digital scans and they preferred digital scans. Operators experienced with conventional impressions were satisfied with conventional impressions but didn't have a preference for the impression type.

Dental Students' Perceptions of Digital and Conventional Impression Techniques: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to analyze inexperienced dental students' perceptions of the difficulty and applicability of digital and conventional implant impressions and their preferences including performance. Fifty undergraduate dental students at a dental school in Switzerland were randomly divided into two groups (2×25). Group A first took digital impressions in a standardized phantom model and then conventional impressions, while the procedures were reversed for Group B. Participants were asked to complete a VAS questionnaire (0-100) on the level of difficulty and applicability (user/patient-friendliness) of both techniques. They were asked which technique they preferred and perceived to be more efficient. A quotient of "effective scan time per software-recorded time" (TRIOS) was calculated as an objective quality indicator for intraoral optical scanning (IOS). The majority of students perceived IOS as easier than the conventional technique. Most (72%) preferred the digital approach using IOS to take the implant impression to the conventional method (12%) or had no preference (12%). Although total work was similar for males and females, the TRIOS quotient indicated that male students tended to use their time more efficiently. In this study, dental students with no clinical experience were very capable of acquiring digital tools, indicating that digital impression techniques can be included early in the dental curriculum to help them catch up with ongoing development in computer-assisted technologies used in oral rehabilitation.

Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to analyze implant impression techniques applying intraoral scanning (IOS) and the conventional method according to time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred participants (n = 100) with diverse levels of dental experience were included and randomly assigned to Group A performing digital scanning (TRIOS Pod) first or Group B conducting conventional impression (open tray with elastomer) first, while the second method was performed consecutively. A customized maxillary model with a bone-level-type implant in the right canine position (FDI-position 13) was mounted on a phantom training unit realizing a standardized situation for all participants. Outcome parameter was time efficiency, and potential influence of clinical experience, operator's perception of level of difficulty, applicability of each method, and subjective preferences were analyzed with Wilcoxon -Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

RESULTS

Mean total work time varied between 5.01 ± 1.56 min (students) and 4.53 ± 1.34 min (dentists) for IOS, and between 12.03 ± 2.00 min (students) and 10.09 ± 1.15 min (dentists) for conventional impressions with significant differences between the two methods. Neither assignment to Group A or B, nor gender nor number of impression-taking procedures did influence working time. Difficulty and applicability of IOS was perceived more favorable compared to conventional impressions, and effectiveness of IOS was rated better by the majority of students (88%) and dentists (64%). While 76% of the students preferred IOS, 48% of the dentists were favoring conventional impressions, and 26% each IOS and either technique.

CONCLUSIONS

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.