Article | . Vol. 19, Issue. 1
Analysis of dental hygienists’ perception of knowledge and attitude toward digital oral scanner



경북전문대학교치위생과1
안동과학대학교치위생과2




.. 33:44


PDF XML




Objectives: To investigate how dental hygienists who have never used a digital oral scanner perceive the impression acquisition and evidence needed for prosthesis planning by using a digital oral scanner. Methods: From July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, subjects from Daegu, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Korea, were selected. The purpose of the study was described to dental hygienists who had never used a digital intraoral scanner. Questionnaires were distributed to the students selected. Of the 137 questionnaires distributed, 93 were used in the analysis after excluding 44 completed questionnaires that had errors or missing answers. Results: Of the respondents, 33.7% (36/93) were aged ≥30 years, 68.8% graduated from a 3-year vocational college course, 33.5% were aged ≥33 years, and 61.3%. At present, our center has the largest number of clinics (92.5%). The difficulty of impression taking using the digital oral scanner significantly differed (p<0.05) according to age and current occupation (p<0.05). Impression taking using a digital oral scanner significantly affected the present workflow of dental hygienists and their interest in sharing information about future use of digital oral scanner (p<0.01). Conclusions: If more routes are available to access digital intraoral scanners and more systems are developed for clinical use, the digital intraoral scanner could become digitized in the dental system; thereby, the existing impressions could be replaced with digitized impressions. With digital intraoral scanners, the expansion of the business of dental hygiene can be expected.



1. Kistep. Seeking strategic countermeasures against future social change in the era of the 4th Industrial Revolution[internet]. Kistep Inside and Insight; 2016.[cited 2018 Sep 17]. Available from: ?.   

2. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24(1):111-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02430.   

3. Biomedcentral. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes[internet]. BMC Oral Health; 2014.[cited 2018 Sep 17]. Available from: https://bmcoralhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6831-14-10.   

4. Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R, Zhurov AI. A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthodontics 2008;35(3):191-201. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531207225022626.   

5. Lee H, Ercoli C, Funkenbusch PD, Feng C. Effect of subgingival depth of implant placement on the dimensional accuracy of the implant impression: an in vitro study. J Prosthetic Dent 2008;99(2):107-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(08)60026-8.   

6. Walker MP, Ries D, Borello B. Implant cast accuracy as a function of impression techniques and impression material viscosity. J Prosthetic Dent 2008;100(6):473. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(08)60267.   

7. Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthetic Dent 2008;100(4):285-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(08)60208-5.   

8. Wee AG. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions. J Prosthetic Dent 2000;83(3):323-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(00)70136-3.   

9. Brosky ME, Pesun IJ, Lowder PD, Delong R, Hodges JS. Laser digitization of casts to determine the effect of tray selection and cast formation technique on accuracy. J Prosthetic Dent 2002;87(2):204-9. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.121240.   

10. Burns J, Palmer R, Howe L, Wilson R. Accuracy of open tray implant impressions: an in vitro comparison of stock versus custom trays. J Prosthetic Dent 2003;89(3):250-5. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2003.38.   

11. Ceyhan JA, Johnson GH, Lepe X. The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions. J Prosthetic Dent 2003;90(2):143-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(03)00276-2.   

12. Vigolo P, Fonzi F, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. An evaluation of impression techniques for multiple internal connection implant prostheses. J Prosthetic Dent 2004;92(5):470-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.08.015.   

13.  [13]Ala Omar Ali. Accuracy of Digital Impressions Achieved from Five Different Digital Impression Systems. J Prosthodontics 2015;5(5):2-6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-1122.1000300.   

14. Ala Omar Ali. Accuracy of digital impressions achieved from five different digital impression system. J Prosthodontics 2015;5(5):2-6. https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-1122.1000300. [14] 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(1):10-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-10.   

15. Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;25(10):1113-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12234.   

16. Kugel G. Impression-taking: conventional methods remain steadfast as digital technology progresses. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2014;35:202-3.   

17. Jeong SH. Development a self-report questionnaire-type scale for measuring user's emotions while using a product. Korean J Sci Emotion Sensibility 2007;10(3):403-10.   

18. Park HR, Park GM, Chun YS, Lee KN, Kim MJ. Changes in views on digital intraoral scanners among dental hygienists after training in digital impression taking. J Article published 2015;15(1):1-3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-015-0140-5.   

19. Herbst D, Nel JC, Driessen CH, Becker PJ. Evaluation of impression accuracy for osseointegrated implant supported superstructures. J Prosthetic Dent 2000;83(5):555-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(00)70014-x.   

20. Choi HS, Kim SH. The application of CAD/CAM in dentistry. J Korean Dent Assoc 2012;50(3):110-7   

21.  [21] Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 2009;28(1):44-56. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.28.44. .  

22. Lee SJ, Macarthur RX, Gallucci GO. An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2013;110(5):420-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.06.012.   

23. Yoon HI, Lee SM, Park EJ. Comparison of patient satisfaction with digital and conventional impression for prosthodontic tretment. J Korean Academy of Prosthodontics 2016;54(4):379-86. https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2016.54.4.379.   

24. Kim JS, Park JM, Kim MJ, Heo SJ, Shin IM, Kim MA. Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners. J Prosthetic Dent 2016;116(2):221-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.018.   



online submission
online submission
online submission
online submission
online submission
Sub Menu
Sub Banner
Sub Menu
Sub Banner
Sub Banner
Sub Banner
Sub Banner
Sub Menu
Sub Menu