THE MOST USED INTRAORAL SCANNERS AMONG DENTISTS IN BULGARIA
Keywords:
intraoral scanner, survey, digitalization, digital patient recordAbstract
Intraoral scanners (IOS) are increasingly incorporating daily dental practice. They allow recording of the oral cavity in a few minutes. Thus eliminating the need for conventional alginate impressions, which are often unpleasant for patients, and plaster casts, which are bulky and require storage space. The procedure is fast, pleasant and interesting for the most patients. It allows the creation of a digital patient file containing his digital casts. Orthodontic analysis is facilitated by software that allows the measurement of various orthodontic parameters to be done quickly, accurately and precisely. Communication with the dental laboratory is facilitated and the possibility of a multidisciplinary approach in each clinical case is increased. The aim of the study is to determine the percentage of dentists in Bulgaria working with intraoral scanners and which are the most used intraoral scanners in Bulgaria.
A questionnaire was developed and provided in an online group accessible only to doctors of dental medicine (DDMs). The group includes 3100 DDMs. Of these, 207 colleagues (6.68% of the group members) completed the survey during the period in which it was launched. The data were statistically processed.
207 DDMs, of whom 88 (42.7%) were men and 118 (57.3%) were women, completed the survey. One respondent did not provide the gender. The average age of the participants in the study was 39 years (range 25 to 69 years). Of the 207 DDMs, 91 (44%) responded that they had an intraoral scanner (IOS). From the data, 91 of the respondents own a total of 99 scanners. Of those who completed the questionnaire, 84 own one IOS (84.84% of all those who own IOS), 6 of the DDM’s have 2 IOS in their practices (6.06%) and one indicated that they have three IOS (1.01%).Their distribution by brand is as follows: 35 of those who completed the survey have an IOS Medit 35 (35.35% of those who have scanners), 20 have the 3 shape brand (20.20%), 13 owns the iTero (13.13%), 13 owns the CEREC (13.13%), Shining 3d Aoralskan 8 (8.08%), four has Emerald (4.04%), two has Heron (2.02%), Strauman virtuo vivo have one (1.01%), one have 3M intraoral scanner (1.01%)and one have Panda 3 (1.01%).
Over a third of participations in the survey or 44% have an IOS and use it in daily dental practice. This is a high percentage based on data from similar studies in other countries. Nine brands of IOS are widespread, with Medit being over 30% followed by 3 shape, iTero and CEREC, which are in equal numbers. A future literature review comparing the characteristics of the most widely used intraoral scanners would be useful for dental practitioners who are still exploring the market and choosing whether to invest and which IOS would be most suitable for their dental practice.
References
Ahlholm, P., Sipilä, K., Vallittu, P., Jakonen, M., & Kotiranta, U. (2018). Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review. Journal of Prosthodontics, 27(1), 35–41. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12527
Aragón, M. L. C., Pontes, L. F., Bichara, L. M., Flores-mir, C., & Normando, D. (2016). Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements : a systematic review. 1–6. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjw033
Burhardt, L., Livas, C., Kerdijk, W., van der Meer, W. J., & Ren, Y. (2016). Treatment comfort, time perception, and preference for conventional and digital impression techniques: A comparative study in young patients. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 150(2), 261–267. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.12.027
Chochlidakis, K. M., Papaspyridakos, P., Geminiani, A., Chen, C. J., Feng, I. J., & Ercoli, C. (2016). Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 116(2), 184-190.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.017
Christensen, G. J. (2008). Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? Journal of the American Dental Association, 139(6), 761–763. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0258
De La Cruz, J. E., Funkenbusch, P. D., Ercoli, C., Moss, M. E., Graser, G. N., & Tallents, R. H. (2002). Verification jig for implant-supported prostheses: A comparison of standard impressions with verification jigs made of different materials. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 88(3), 329–336. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2002.128070
Eggmann, F., & Blatz, M. B. (2024). Recent Advances in Intraoral Scanners. Journal of Dental Research, 103(13), 1349–1357. doi: 10.1177/00220345241271937
Goracci, C., Franchi, L., Vichi, A., & Ferrari, M. (2016). Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: A systematic review of the clinical evidence. European Journal of Orthodontics, 38(4), 422–428. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjv077
Grünheid, T., McCarthy, S. D., & Larson, B. E. (2014). Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: An assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 146(5), 673–682. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023
Imburgia, M., Logozzo, S., Hauschild, U., Veronesi, G., Mangano, C., & Mangano, F. G. (2017). Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: A comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health, 17(1), 1–13. doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4
Joda, T., & Brägger, U. (2015a). Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 26(12), 1430–1435. doi: 10.1111/clr.12476
Joda, T., & Brägger, U. (2015b). Time-Efficiency Analysis Comparing Digital and Conventional Workflows for Implant Crowns: A Prospective Clinical Crossover Trial. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 30(5), 1047–1053. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3963
Joda, T., & Brägger, U. (2016). Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 27(12), e185–e189. doi: 10.1111/clr.12600
Joda, T., Lenherr, P., Dedem, P., Kovaltschuk, I., Bragger, U., & Zitzmann, N. U. (2017). Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator’s preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 28(10), 1318–1323. doi: 10.1111/clr.12982
Kihara, H., Hatakeyama, W., Komine, F., Takafuji, K., Takahashi, T., Yokota, J., Oriso, K., & Kondo, H. (2020). Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review. Journal of Prosthodontic Research, 64(2), 109–113. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.07.010
Kim, J., Park, J. M., Kim, M., Heo, S. J., Shin, I. H., & Kim, M. (2016). Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 116(2), 221–230. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.018
Lecocq, G. (2016). Digital impression-taking: Fundamentals and benefits in orthodontics. International Orthodontics, 14(2), 184–194. doi: 10.1016/j.ortho.2016.03.003
Lee, S. J., & Gallucci, G. O. (2013). Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: Efficiency outcomes. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 24(1), 111–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02430.x
Lee, S. J., Macarthur IV, R. X., & Gallucci, G. O. (2013). An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 110(5), 420–423. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.06.012
Lim, J. H., Park, J. M., Kim, M., Heo, S. J., & Myung, J. Y. (2018). Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 119(2), 225–232. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.002
Marti, A. M., Harris, B. T., Metz, M. J., Morton, D., Scarfe, W. C., Metz, C. J., & Lin, W. S. (2017). Comparison of digital scanning and polyvinyl siloxane impression techniques by dental students: instructional efficiency and attitudes towards technology. European Journal of Dental Education, 21(3), 200–205. doi: 10.1111/eje.12201
Martin, C. B., Chalmers, E. V, Mcintyre, G. T., Cochrane, H., & Mossey, P. A. (2015). Orthodontic scanners : what ’ s available ? 42, 136–143. doi: 10.1179/1465313315Y.0000000001
Means, C. R., & Flenniken, I. E. (1970). Gagging-a problem in prosthetic dentistry. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 23(6), 614–620. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(70)90224-6
Park, H. R., Park, J. M., Chun, Y. S., Lee, K. N., & Kim, M. (2015). Changes in views on digital intraoral scanners among dental hygienists after training in digital impression taking. BMC Oral Health, 15(1), 1–7. doi: 10.1186/s12903-015-0140-5
Patzelt, S. B. M., Lamprinos, C., Stampf, S., & Att, W. (2014). The time efficiency of intraoral scanners. Journal of the American Dental Association, 145(6), 542–551. doi: 10.14219/jada.2014.23
Rosted, P., Bundgaard, M., Fiske, J., & Pedersen, A. M. L. (2006). The use of acupuncture in controlling the gag reflex in patients requiring an upper alginate impression: An audit. British Dental Journal, 201(11), 721–725. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4814305
Rutkūnas, V., Auškalnis, L., & Pletkus, J. (2024). Intraoral scanners in implant prosthodontics. A narrative review. Journal of Dentistry, 148, 105152. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105152
Sakornwimon, N., & Leevailoj, C. (2017). Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients’ preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 118(3), 386–391. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.019
Schepke, U., Meijer, H. J. A., Kerdijk, W., & Cune, M. S. (2015). Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: Operating time and patient preference. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 114(3), 403-406.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.003
Suese, K. (2020). Progress in digital dentistry: The practical use of intraoral scanners. Dental Materials Journal, 39(1), 52–56. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2019-224
Ting-shu, S., & Jian, S. (2015). Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review. Journal of Prosthodontics, 24(4), 313–321. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12218
Yordanova, G., & Gurgurova, G. (2021). Perception and feedback toward digital models and plaster casts in orthodontic patients. World Journal of Dentistry, 12(3), 173–177. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1824
Yordanova G, G. Gurgurova, I. Kostov & Georgieva M. (2023). "Software Orthodontics - Myth or Reality? Technological Management of Clinical Practice". International Scientific Conference on Computer Science (COMSCI), Sozopol, Bulgaria, 2023, pp. 1-4.
Yoshiga, C., Doi, K., Oue, H., Kobatake, R., Kawagoe, M., Umehara, H., & Tsuga, K. (2024). Utility of intraoral scanner imaging for dental plaque detection. Imaging Science in Dentistry, 54(1), 43–48. doi: 10.5624/isd.20230180
Zimmermann, M., Mehl, A., Mörmann, W. H., & Reich, S. (2015). Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview. International Journal of Computerized Dentistry, 18(2), 101–129. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26110925
