Does the Learning Curve for Intraoral Scanning Vary Depending on the Device?

IF 1.2 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
M S N Borges, L Cardoso, M T Rea, V Pedrazzi, C Tirapelli
{"title":"Does the Learning Curve for Intraoral Scanning Vary Depending on the Device?","authors":"M S N Borges, L Cardoso, M T Rea, V Pedrazzi, C Tirapelli","doi":"10.1922/EJPRD_2766Borges09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Digital impressions using intraoral scanners (IOS) are replacing conventional impressions, requiring a learning process. This study compared the learning curves of 29 dentists with no prior IOS experience, randomly assigned to groups: Eagle, Omnicam- AF, and IS-3700.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After a lecture, participants performed three full scans (maxilla, mandible, and occlusion record) on a phantom and completed a survey about their experience. Scanning times to achieve adequate scans were recorded, and Wright's model was used to estimate the number of trials required for proficiency. Statistical analyses used Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-Square tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Proficiency was achieved after 10 trials with Eagle and 11 trials with Omnicam-AF and IS-3700. Participants using IS- 3700 reached the plateau faster (167.9 s) than those using Eagle (245.5 s, P=0.041) and Omnicam-AF (260.6 s, P=0.014). While all groups appreciated the time-saving benefits over conventional impressions, 60-70% identified the need for further training.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite similar trials required for proficiency, differences in average scanning times suggest that IOS characteristics may influence learning efficiency and user perceptions.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Understanding learning curves and device-specific performance can help optimize IOS training programs and guide clinicians in adopting digital workflows effectively.</p>","PeriodicalId":45686,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":"33-41"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2766Borges09","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Digital impressions using intraoral scanners (IOS) are replacing conventional impressions, requiring a learning process. This study compared the learning curves of 29 dentists with no prior IOS experience, randomly assigned to groups: Eagle, Omnicam- AF, and IS-3700.

Methods: After a lecture, participants performed three full scans (maxilla, mandible, and occlusion record) on a phantom and completed a survey about their experience. Scanning times to achieve adequate scans were recorded, and Wright's model was used to estimate the number of trials required for proficiency. Statistical analyses used Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-Square tests.

Results: Proficiency was achieved after 10 trials with Eagle and 11 trials with Omnicam-AF and IS-3700. Participants using IS- 3700 reached the plateau faster (167.9 s) than those using Eagle (245.5 s, P=0.041) and Omnicam-AF (260.6 s, P=0.014). While all groups appreciated the time-saving benefits over conventional impressions, 60-70% identified the need for further training.

Conclusion: Despite similar trials required for proficiency, differences in average scanning times suggest that IOS characteristics may influence learning efficiency and user perceptions.

Clinical relevance: Understanding learning curves and device-specific performance can help optimize IOS training programs and guide clinicians in adopting digital workflows effectively.

口腔内扫描的学习曲线是否因设备而异?
目的:使用口内扫描仪(IOS)的数字印模正在取代传统印模,这需要一个学习过程。本研究比较了29名之前没有IOS经验的牙医的学习曲线,他们被随机分配到Eagle、Omnicam- AF和IS-3700组。方法:讲座结束后,参与者对假体进行了三次全扫描(上颌、下颌骨和咬合记录),并完成了一项关于他们体验的调查。记录了达到充分扫描的扫描次数,并使用Wright的模型来估计熟练所需的试验次数。统计分析采用Kruskal-Wallis检验和卡方检验。结果:Eagle试验10次,Omnicam-AF和IS-3700试验11次,达到熟练程度。使用IS- 3700的参与者比使用Eagle (245.5 s, P=0.041)和Omnicam-AF (260.6 s, P=0.014)的参与者更快(167.9 s)到达高原。虽然所有的小组都赞赏这种比传统印象节省时间的好处,但60-70%的人认为需要进一步的培训。结论:尽管熟练程度需要类似的试验,但平均扫描时间的差异表明IOS特征可能影响学习效率和用户感知。临床相关性:了解学习曲线和设备特定性能可以帮助优化IOS培训计划,并指导临床医生有效地采用数字工作流程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry is published quarterly and includes clinical and research articles in subjects such as prosthodontics, operative dentistry, implantology, endodontics, periodontics and dental materials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信