RESUMO
The accuracy of definitive impressions has a significant impact on the quality of the final prosthesis. Elastic impression materials are commonly used in the traditional approach to replicate anatomical structures while indirectly fabricating prostheses. Digital impression has gained increasing popularity due to its various advantages, including three-dimensional previsualization, cost-effectiveness, and reduced time consumption. The objective of this study is to evaluate existing studies to provide an overview of the comparative advantages of digital impression techniques over conventional techniques. The review will focus on evaluating the accuracy, patient acceptability, operator preference, and time effectiveness of digital impression techniques in comparison to conventional techniques. The Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome framework served as the basis for this study's search strategy. We conducted a comprehensive literature review by electronically searching articles published between 2000 and 2023 in PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, and the Web of Science. Furthermore, additional manual searches were conducted. The study examined the differences between optical impressions and traditional impressions in terms of accuracy, patient outcomes, and operator outcomes. It included both clinical and preclinical studies as well as randomized controlled trials. In conclusion, this review provides a short summary indicating that digital impressions exhibit comparable accuracy to conventional impressions without any statistically significant difference. This conclusion is based on an evaluation of accuracy, patient preference, and operator preference.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: External high-volume extraction (HVE) devices may offer a way to reduce any aerosol particulate generated. The aim of this study was to measure the particle count during dental aerosol-generating procedures and compare the results with when a HVE device is used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Design A comparative clinical study measuring the amount of PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 aerosol particulate with and without the use of an external HVE device was undertaken. Materials and methods in total, ten restorative procedures were monitored with an industrial Trotec PC220 particle counter. The intervention was an external HVE device. Main outcome methods the air sampler was placed at the average working distance of the clinicians involved in the study - 420 mm. RESULTS: In the present study, aerosol particulate was recorded at statistically significantly increased levels during dental procedures without an external HVE device versus with the device. Discussion The null hypothesis was rejected, in that significant differences were found between the results of the amount of aerosol particle count with and without a HVE device. CONCLUSION: If the results of the present study are repeated in an in vivo setting, an external high-volume suction device may potentially show a lower risk of transmission of viral particulate.
