Accuracy and dental anxiety assessment of digital impression among pediatric patients

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was twofold. First, it sought to compare the inter-canine distance measured on digital models generated by a digital scanner with those obtained from cast models made using alginate impressions of pediatric patients. Second, it aimed to compare the level of dental anxiety associated with the two impression techniques. Materials and Methods: The study population consisted of 50 patients aged 9–13 years who visited the Department of Pedodontics for dental treatment. Both alginate and digital impressions were taken consecutively for each patient. The five-point Facial Image Scale (FIS) was administered at baseline and after each impression technique. Pulse rate and oxygen saturation levels were measured, and the highest values were recorded. Inter-canine distances were measured on digital models, plaster casts, and intraorally (the latter serving as the gold standard). The two impression methods were compared in terms of dental anxiety and measurement accuracy. The Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to compare data between groups. Results: Digital measurements were significantly higher than intraoral and alginate measurements, while intraoral and alginate measurements did not differ significantly. When FIS scores were compared, the alginate impression method resulted in higher mean scores than the digital method, indicating a higher level of dental anxiety (p = 0.026). There was no statistically significant difference between the two methods in terms of oxygen saturation levels (p = 0.27). However, the mean pulse rates recorded during the alginate impressions were significantly higher than those recorded during the digital impressions (p = 0.001). Conclusion: The digital impression method may be preferred over alginate impressions to enhance treatment adherence in children by offering a more patient-friendly approach.

Keywords

• Alginate impression
• children
• dental anxiety
• digital impression
• pediatric dentistry
• pulse rate/oximetry

References

1. Sarai JK. Space maintenance treatment planning for pediatric patients [PhD thesis]. Vancouver: University of British Columbia; 2020. google scholar
2. Lemos LS, Rebello IM, Vogel CJ, Barbosa MC. Reliability of measurements made on scanned cast models using the 3Shape R700 scanner. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015;44(6):20140337. google scholar
3. Alhouri N, McCord JF, Smith PW. The quality of dental casts used in crown and bridgework. Br Dent J 2004;197(5):261-4. google scholar
4. Henninger E, Vasilakos G, Halazonetis D, Gkantidis N. The effect of regular dental cast artifacts on the 3D superimposition of serial digital maxillary dental models. Sci Rep 2019;9(1):10501. google scholar
5. Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 2011;14(1):1-16. google scholar
6. Bosoni C, Nieri M, Franceschi D, Souki BQ, Franchi L, Giuntini V. Comparison between digital and conventional impression techniques in children on preference, time and comfort: A crossover randomized controlled trial. Orthod Craniofac Res 2023;26(4):585-90. google scholar
7. Rosted P, Bundgaard M, Fiske J, Pedersen AM. The use of acupuncture in controlling the gag reflex in patients requiring an upper alginate impression: an audit. Br Dent J 2006;201(11):721-5. google scholar
8. Armfield JM, Heaton LJ. Management of fear and anxiety in the dental clinic: a review. Aust Dent J 2013;58(4):390-407. google scholar

9. Kim SY, Kim MJ, Han JS, Yeo IS, Lim YJ, Kwon HB. Accuracy of dies captured by an intraoral digital impression system using parallel confocal imaging. Int J Prosthodont 2013;26(2):161-3. google scholar
10. Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140(10):1301-4. google scholar
11. Suese K. Progress in digital dentistry: The practical use of intraoral scanners. Dent Mater J 2020;39(1):52-6. google scholar
12. 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. google scholar
13. 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):868-75. google scholar
14. Kihara H, Hatakeyama W, Komine F, Takafuji K, Takahashi T, Yokota J, Oriso K, Kondo H. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review. J Prosthodont Res 2020;64(2):109-13. google scholar
15. Sousa MV, Vasconcelos EC, Janson G, Garib D, Pinzan A. Accuracy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142(2):269-73. google scholar
16. Alcan T, Ceylanoğlu C, Baysal B. The relationship between digital model accuracy and time-dependent deformation of alginate impressions. Angle Orthod 2009;79(1):30-6. google scholar
17. Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136(1):16.e1-4. google scholar
18. Burzynski JA, Firestone AR, Beck FM, Fields HW Jr, Deguchi T. Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;153(4):534-41. google scholar
19. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115(3):313-20. google scholar
20. Redlich M, Weinstock T, Abed Y, Schneor R, Holdstein Y, Fischer A. A new system for scanning, measuring and analyzing dental casts based on a 3D holographic sensor. Orthod Craniofac Res 2008;11(2):90-5. google scholar
21. Liu PR, Essig ME. Panorama of dental CAD/CAM restorative systems. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2008;29(8):482-6. google scholar
22. Limbu S, Dikshit P, Malla M, Parajuli P, Mehata S. Live Modeling Versus Tell-Show-Do Technique Based on Children's Heart Rates, Oxygen Saturation and Facial Image Scale. J Nepal Health Res Counc 2022;19(4):797-804. google scholar
23. Shetty RM, Khandelwal M, Rath S. RMS Pictorial Scale (RMS-PS): an innovative scale for the assessment of child's dental anxiety. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2015;33(1):48-52. google scholar
24. Appukuttan DP. Strategies to manage patients with dental anxiety and dental phobia: literature review. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2016;8:35-50. google scholar
25. Sharma RK, Balhara YP, Sagar R, Deepak KK, Mehta M. Heart rate variability study of childhood anxiety disorders. J Cardiovasc Dis Res 2011;2(2): 115-22. google scholar
26. 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. google scholar
27. Mangano A, Beretta M, Luongo G, Mangano C, Mangano F. Conventional vs Digital Impressions: Acceptability, Treatment Comfort and Stress Among Young Orthodontic Patients. Open Dent J 2018;12:118-24. google scholar