PURPOSE: . To evaluate and compare the effect of impression type (conventional vs digital) and the number of implants on the time from the impressions to the generation of working casts of mandibular implant-supported fixed completearch frameworks, as well as on patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: . 17 participants, 3 or 4 implants, received 2 types of digital impression methods (DI) and conventional (CI). In DI, two techniques were performed: scanning with the scan bodies (SC) and scanning with a device attached to the scan bodies (SD) (BR 10 2019 026265 6). In CI, the making of a solid index (SI) and open-tray impression (OT) were used. The outcomes were used to evaluate the time and the participant satisfaction with conventional and digital impressions. The time was evaluated through the timing of the time obtained in the workflow in the conventional and digital impression. The effect of the number of implants on time was also assessed. Satisfaction was assessed through a questionnaire based on seven. The Wilcoxon test used to identify the statistical difference between the groups in terms of time. The Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the relationship between the time and the number of implants. Fisher's test was used to assess the patient satisfaction (P <.05). RESULTS: . The time with DI was shorter than with CI (DI, x~=02:58; CI, x~=31:48) (P <.0001). The arches rehabilitated with 3 implants required shorter digital impression time (3: x~=05:36; 4: x~=09:16) (P <.0001). Regarding satisfaction, the DI was more comfortable and pain-free than the CI (P <.005). CONCLUSION . Digital impressions required shorter chair time and had higher patient acceptance than conventional impressions.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this diagnostic study was to assess the accuracy and time efficiency of a digital method to draw the denture foundation extension outline on preliminary casts compared with the conventional technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 28 preliminary edentulous casts with no anatomical landmarks were digitized using a laboratory scanner. The outlining of the entire basal seat of the denture was performed on preliminary casts and digitized. Casts with no extension outline were digitized and outlines were drawn using software (DWOS, Straumann). The accuracy of the extension outlined between both techniques was evaluated in the software (GOM Inspect; GOM GmbH) by file superimposition. Specificity and sensitivity tests were applied to measure accuracy. The paired t-test (95% CI) was used to compare the mean total area and the working time. RESULTS: The accuracy ranged from 0.57 to 0.92. The buccal and labial frenulum showed a lower value in the maxilla (0.57); while the area between the retromolar pad and buccal frenulum (0.64) showed a lower score in the mandible. The maxillary denture foundation and the working time for both arches were significantly longer for the digital method (P < .001). CONCLUSION The denture foundation extension outline exhibited a sufficiently excellent accuracy for the digital method, except for the maxillary anterior region.However, the digital method required a longer working time.