Direct vs. Indirect Digital Implant Impressions: A Time and Cost Analysis

• Published in: Dentistry journal 2024-10, Vol.12 (11), p.340
• Main Authors: Sampaio-Fernandes, Manuel António, Pinto, Ricardo Jorge, Almeida, Paulo Rocha, Sampaio-Fernandes, Maria Margarida, Silva Marques, Duarte Nuno, Figueiral, Maria Helena
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Accuracy; cast scan; clinical efficiency; Cost analysis; Cost assessments; Data processing; dental economics; Dental prosthetics; dental scanning; digital dental impression; digital implant impression; Digitization; Efficiency; Fabrication; Implants; Implants, Artificial; Laboratories; Manufacturers; Methods; Prostheses; Prosthesis; Rehabilitation; Scanners; Scanning; Software; Statistical analysis; Statistical models; Stone; Transplants & implants; Variance analysis; Workflow
• ISSN: 2304-6767; 2304-6767
• DOI: 10.3390/dj12110340

This study aimed to compare the cost and time implications for implant-supported prosthesis comparing three digital impression techniques: digitization with an intraoral scanner, digitization of the conventional impression (without dental casts) and digitization of the stone models. To assess the time and cost of digital impression techniques on implants, time records on intraoral scans were consulted and three models were created with one, two and six implants to assess extraoral procedures time. Costs were evaluated based on material consumption, time expenditure and operator-related expenses. Time was recorded in three stages: (1) impression-taking, (2) model fabrication and (3) overall workflow completion. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA to compare cost and time differences across workflows. Intraoral scanning presented a reduction in chair-side time between 4 and 20% when compared to extraoral techniques. For the three clinical situations evaluated, the intraoral scanning always presented the lowest cost. The extraoral digitization of impressions showed a reduction between 51.9% and 53.6% in laboratory time and between 3.5% and 7.6% in total cost compared to stone models digitization. The findings of this study indicate that intraoral scanning is a more cost-effective and time-efficient alternative to traditional impression methods, providing advantages in terms of reduced material use and shorter procedural durations.