×
Inside Dentistry
August 2016
Volume 12, Issue 8
Peer-Reviewed

The Capabilities

Any practitioner who is considering going digital will want to consider the capabilities and contraindications of the various systems that are available. None of the systems on the market can accurately scan through or around blood, tissue, or saliva. In other words, retraction and proper preparation isolation is a must.17 The impressioning technique is still very similar to that of a traditional impressioning technique; the principles are the same either way. The clinician must play with the available scanners and get the feel for what will work best in his or her practice.

Conclusion

With all of the factors that need to be considered before making the leap into digital dentistry, a clinician must ask, “Why make a change?” What is it that is intriguing enough to look into digital dentistry? Any clinician that is having success with his or her current techniques may not need to look further into digital impressioning.

The digital landscape of dentistry is changing on a daily basis. The “middle man” in dentistry has recently become an intangible innovation. Diagnosis and treatment planning still play the most important role in the profession of dentistry, but scanners have become a fascinating tool to produce an extremely accurate dental restoration by non-conventional means. Clinicians need to stay abreast of the changes to provide the patient with the most advanced form of treatment available.

Disclosure

Dr. Duplantis reports no conflicts of interest with the material presented herein.

References

1. Duret F, Preston JD. CAD/CAM imaging in dentistry. Curr Opin Dent. 1991;1(2):150-154.

2. Mörmann WH, Brandestini M, Lutz F, Barbakow F. Chairside computer-aided direct ceramic inlays. Quintessence Int. 1989;20:329-339.

3. Couch B. The evolution of digital dentistry. CAD/ CAM. 2013;3(2):22-26.

4. Wismeijer D. First we replaced the root by an implant, now we need to replace an analogue dental world by a digital one. ACTA Amsterdam. In: Starget 2. 2010;10-16.

5. Patzelt SB, Bishti S, Stampf S, Att W. Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing- generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145(11):1133-1140.

6. Ogledzki M, Wenzel K, Doherty E, et al. Accuracy of 3M-Brontes stereolithography models compared to plaster models. J Dent Res. 2010;89(special issue A). Abstract 1060.

7. Dunne P. Digital dentistry and SLA technology: the coming extinction of stone models. Lab Management Today. November/December 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.lmtmag.com/pdfs/LTT_3MdunneND08.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2016.

8. Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(3):555-560.

9. Vennerstrom M, Fakhary M, Von Steyern PV. The fit of crowns produced using digital impression systems. Swed Dent J. 2014;38(3):101-110.

10. Paradies G, Zarauz C, et al. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions based on wavefront sampling technology. J Dent. 2015;43(2):201-208.

11. Patzett SB, Lamprinos C, Stampf S, Att W. The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145(6):542-551.

12. Bunek S, Brown C, Yakas M. The evolving impressions of digital dentistry. Inside Dentistry. 2014;10(1):30-39.

13. das Neves FD, do Prado CJ, Prudente MS, et al. Microcomputed tomography marginal fit evaluation of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing crowns with different methods of virtual model acquisition. Gen Dent. 2015;63(3):39-42.

14. das Neves FD, do Prado CJ, Prudente MS, et al. Microcomputed tomography marginal fit evaluation of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing crowns with different methods of virtual model acquisition. Gen Dent. 2015;63(3):39-42.

15. 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 Jan 30;14:10. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-10.

16. Stover J. Successfully integrating digital impressions into the practice. Inside Dental Assisting. Nov/Dec 2011 7(6) [Online]. Available at https://www.dentalaegis.com/ida/2011/12/successfully-integrating-digital-impressions-into-the-practice. Accessed January 4, 2016.

17. Christensen GJ. Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139(6):761-763.

About the Author

Chad C. Duplantis, DDS
Private Practice
Fort Worth, Texas

© 2021 AEGIS Communications | Privacy Policy