Aim and objective: This research aims to evaluate the comfort during digital intraoral scanning, to summarize patients’ opinions for the procedure of creation of digital models, and to investigate if this new procedure influences their motivation for orthodontic treatment.
Materials and methods: In this investigation, 159 patients from different age groups are included. All of them had digital casts, taken by intraoral scanning and classic models, made by using machine mixed alginate material. The assessments were given by the patients by filling in a questionnaire with a number measurement of the processes on a scale from 1 to 10 or positive answer “Yes” or a negative answer “No”.
Results: According to 81.14% of patients, the more informative method is digital and 18.86% still perceive that the classic gypsum models as a reliable carrier of data. Patients feel greater discomfort while working with an alginate impression, rated on a scale of 3.30, while the discomfort when intraoral scanning was made is rated 2.92. If the patients have the chance to choose only one of these procedures, they will prefer intraoral scanning in 73.58% of the cases. For 94.33% of the interviewed patients, the intraoral scanning was of great interest and only a few patient percepts it as clinical manipulation.
Conclusion: The patients are cooperative to the establishment of digital technology in modern orthodontics and they are ready to assist in this process. The advantage of 3D files and virtual presentations are more demonstrative for the patients. The STL files give opportunities for greater accuracy, the possibility for analysis, long-term storage, and transfers in contemporary orthodontic practice.
Clinical significance: All clinical manipulations and the final result of orthodontic treatment depend on the patient's cooperation and the patient's direct participation in the process. Therefore, it is really important, during the first visits in orthodontic practice, that the patient feels calm and in comfort. The use of innovative technologies in orthodontics is perceived by young patients as routine technologies because their daily routine is more digitalized. In older patients, who are used to pass routine dental manipulations, the new technologies are associated with more expensive and more incomprehensible treatment, which disturbs them. It is important to know their willingness toward the digitalization of the orthodontic tests and manipulations and to receive feedback.
Burhardt L, Livas C, Kerdijk W, et al. 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):261–267. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.12.027.
Zimmermann M, Koller C, Rumetsch M, et al. Precision of guided scanning procedures for full-arch digital impressions in vivo. J Orofac Orthop 2017;78(6):466–471. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-017-0103-3.
Lecocq G. Digital impression-taking: Fundamentals and benefits in orthodontics. IntOrthod 2016;14(2):184–194. DOI: 10.1016/j.ortho.2016.03.003.
Martin C, Chalmers E, McIntyre G, et al. Orthodontic scanners: what's available? J Orthodont 2014(2):1–9. DOI: 10.1179/1465313315Y.0000000001.
Christensen LR. Digital workflows in orthodontics. J Clin Orthod 2018;52(1):34–44.
Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, et al. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod 2016;38(4):422–428. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjv077.
Cesur MG, Omurlu IK, Ozer T. Evaluation of digital model accuracy and time-dependent deformation of alginate impressions. Niger J Clin Pract 2017;20(9):1175–1181. DOI: 10.4103/1119-3077.197012.
Wadhwa S, Mehta R, Duggal N, et al. The effect of pouring time on the dimensional accuracy of casts made from different irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials. Contemp Clin Dent 2013;4(3):313–318. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.118368.
Alcan T, Ceylanoğlu C, Baysal B. The relationship between digital model accuracy and time-dependent deformation of alginate impressions. Angle Orthod 2009;79(1):30–36. DOI: 10.2319/100307-475.1.
Walker MP, Burckhard J, Mitts DA, et al. Dimensional change over time of extended-storage alginate impression materials. Angle Orthod 2010;80(6):1110–1115. DOI: 10.2319/031510-150.1.
Torassian G, Kau CH, English JD, et al. Digital models vs plaster models using alginate and alginate substitute materials. Ang Orthod 2010;80(4):474–481. DOI: 10.2319/072409-413.1.
Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, et al. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014;14(1):10. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-10.
Grünheid T, McCarthy S, Larson B. Clinical use of a direct chair side oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;146(5):673–682. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023.
Sfondrini MF, Gandini P, Malfatto M, et al. Computerized casts for orthodontic purpose using powder-free intraoral scanners: accuracy, execution time and patient feedback. Biomed Res Int 2018(4):1–8. DOI: 10.1155/2018/4103232.
Schott T, Arsalan R, Weimer K. Students’ perspectives on the use of digital versus conventional dental impression techniques in orthodontics. BMC Med Educ 2019;19(1):81. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-019-1512-3.
Glisic O, Hoejbjerre L, Sonnesen L. A comparison of patient experience, chair-side time, accuracy of dental arch measurements and costs of acquisition of dental models. Angle Orthod 2019;89(6):868–875. DOI: 10.2319/020619-84.1.
