{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02521408182683159, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015223596574690771, 'mean_word_length': 5.6761904761904765, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Clinical Efficiency and Patient Preference of Immediate Digital Impression after Implant Placement for Single Implant-Supported Crown.

OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the time efficiency and patient preference of three impression techniques by comparing immediate digital impression performed directly after implantation with regular digital impression and conventional implant impression performed 3 months after implantation.


METHODS
Twenty consecutive patients with a missing single molar or premolar who received implant treatment were recruited into this prospective self-controlled clinical trial. Three different impression techniques were performed after implant surgery on all the participants: An intraoral scanning (IOS) impression performed immediately after implant placement (immediate digital impression) was compared with a regular digital impression and a classic polyether impression (conventional implant impression) performed 3 months after implant surgery. The operating time of each impression technique was recorded. Patients were asked to complete a visual analogue scale (VAS) questionnaire on their perception of the three techniques to describe their satisfaction and preference. Statistical analyses were performed with the Wilcoxon signed rank test.


RESULTS
The clinical time of the immediate digital impression (10.97 ± 2.1 min) was significantly shorter than that of the conventional implant impression (14.45 ± 3.0 min) (P < 0.05). The mean time of the immediate digital impression (10.97 ± 2.1 min) was statistically the same as that of the regular digital impression (10.23 ± 2.7 min) (P > 0.05). Participants' subjective evaluation indicated higher satisfaction with the immediate digital impression than with the regular digital impression and the conventional implant impression.


CONCLUSION
The immediate digital impression was more efficient than the conventional implant impression and had the same efficiency as the regular digital impression. Among the three impression techniques, the participants showed higher satisfaction with the immediate digital impression.