Neslihan Güntekin¹ , Emine İldirin¹, Sema İleri¹, Ali Rıza Tunçdemir¹

1. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Dentistry, Konya, Turkey

Received: 20 September 2024

Revised: 27 September 2024

Accepted: 27 September 2024

Published: 27 September 2024

Keywords:

Intraoral scanners, digital dentistry, awareness, dental education.

Corresponding author:

Dt. Emine İldirin.

Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Dentistry, Konya, Turkey.

emineildirn@gmail.com  

doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13838511

Cite as:

Güntekin N, İldirin E, İleri S, Tunçdemir AR. Evaluation of Dentistry Students Perspective on Intraoral Scanners and Their Level of Knowledge About Scanners. Med J Eur. 2024;2(4):91-93. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13847541

ABSTRACT

Information on how much new dental technologies are included in the educational curricula in our country is limited. This study aims to evaluate the Perspective of Dentistry Students on Intraoral Scanners and their Level of Knowledge about Scanners. In this study, the survey method was preferred in the data collection process. In the survey, 3rd, 4th and 5th grade students at Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Dentistry were reached, and students who did not respond were not included in the study. The study was conducted on the answers of a total of 170 students. The data obtained were evaluated collectively and analyzed without using statistical tools. According to the analysis of the study, the age range of the participants was between 20 and 32 years old, and the average age was 22.4 years. 57 men and 113 women participated in the research. 59 of the participants are term 3 students, 59 are term 4 students and 52 are term 5 students. 75.9% of participants believe that measurements taken from an intraoral scanner will provide more accurate results than traditional methods; 2.9% do not think so and 21.2% state that they have no information on this issue. The majority of participants (95.3%) believe that intraoral scanners will increase treatment comfort. None of the participants think that intraoral scanner use will decrease in the future. Although the participants did not receive direct training, it was concluded that they had sufficient awareness about intraoral scanners and were positive about the use of intraoral scanners.

INTRODUCTION

As a result of the development of digital technology, there have been developments in digital dentistry and these developments have become an integral part of clinical practices. Intraoral scanners are modern digital imaging devices used in dentistry practices (1,2).

Intraoral scanners were developed as part of the digitalization process in the dental industry. Although this technology began in the late 1980s, it is only recently that it has become widely used and widespread. The first intraoral scanners were introduced in the early 2000s, along with a number of developments that helped dentists make the transition to digital imaging technology, and in recent years It has further developed with increasing competition and technological advances (1).

With the development of digital intraoral scanning devices, it is possible to digitally obtain the intraoral region directly from the patient. In this way, the need for traditionally taken measurements can be eliminated (3). Today, Trios (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), Lava COS (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), iTero (Align Technologies, San Jose, Calif), CEREC AC (Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) and E4D (D4D Technologies, Richardson, Tex) are the most commonly used digital intraoral scanning devices to obtain digital images (4).

Intraoral scanners are used to obtain detailed images of the teeth, gums, and other oral tissues inside the mouth. Traditionally, plaster models have been used for dental monitoring and treatment planning; However, intraoral scanners have made this process faster, more accurate and more comfortable. Thanks to these scanners, dentists and dental technicians have become able to produce customized dental restorations, prosthetics, clear aligners and other treatment options using digitally produced models (1).

Intraoral scanners capture images by reflection of a laser or arranged light source without contacting biological tissues. The technology the sensor uses determines the speed, resolution and accuracy of the scanner. These devices process data using special software and create 3D virtual images of dental structures (5).

With the influence of the digital age, the necessity of changes and improvements in prosthetic and restorative dentistry education has emerged. Most students studying in dental schools today belong to the millennial generation and have the ability to quickly adapt to new technologies (6) Educators should strive to meet social needs and provide curricula equipped with up-to-date information. Additionally, the tendency of dentists to resist providing services based on outdated information should also be taken into account (7).

There is limited information about the extent to which new dental technologies are included in the educational curricula in our country. The aim of this study is to evaluate the dentistry students’ perspective on intraoral scanners and their level of knowledge about scanners.

METHODS

This research used the survey method in the data collection process. The survey was created on the Google Forms platform and presented to participants on a voluntary basis. The survey, consisting of 19 questions in total, was sent to the participants online via WhatsApp and was supported with a reminder message a week later. The results were obtained by recording the participants’ responses. It was sent to 3rd, 4th and 5th grade students studying at Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Dentistry, and students who did not respond were not included in the study. The study was conducted on the answers of 170 students.

The first 3 questions in the study include demographic data, the 4th to the 16th questions measure the students’ knowledge level about intraoral scanners, and the last 3 questions evaluate the students’ perspective on intraoral scanners.

Only 2 of the questions are open-ended and the rest consist of multiple-choice answers. The data obtained were evaluated collectively and analyzed without using statistical tools.

RESULTS

As a result of the analysis of the data obtained in the first part of the survey, which includes demographic information, the participants are between the ages of 20-32. 32.4% of the participants are 22 years old, 27.6% are 23 years old, 17.6% are 21 years old, 15.9% are 24 years old, 3.5% are 20 years old, 2.4% are 25 years old, and 0% are 25 years old. ,6 of them are 32 years old and the average age is 22.4 years. There were 57 men and 113 women in the study. 59 of the participants were in the 3rd grade, 59 were in the 4th grade, and 52 were in the 5th grade.

In the second part of the study, as a result of the analysis of data on intraoral scanners, it was revealed that 77.6% of the participants had seen an intraoral scanner before, while 12.4% had used these scanners. While the percentage of faculty members who knew about the existence of an intraoral scanner was 82.9%, 16.5% responded that they did not know. 95.3% said that they had not received intraoral scanner training before.

Among the answers to the question “In what situations are intraoral scanners used?” where they can choose many options at the same time, 64.5% of the participants answered in single-member fixed prosthetic treatments, 82.5% in multi-member fixed prosthetic treatments, and 45.3% in multi-member fixed prosthetic treatments. In partial removable prosthetic treatment, 32.2% in full removable prosthetic treatment, 58.2% in single-member implant-based treatments, 67.1% in multi-member implant-supported treatments, 54.1% in endocrown/inlay/onlay. treatments, 4.8% chose orthodontic treatments and 2.4% chose the “don’t know” option.

While 75.9% of the participants think that the measurements taken from the intraoral scanner will give more accurate results than the measurements taken traditionally, 2.9% do not think so. 21.2% stated that they did not know. A total of 88.2% of the participants think that the use of an oral scanner will shorten the treatment time, and 3.5% of the participants do not think so. 8.2% have no idea about this issue.

Most participants (95.3%) believe that intraoral scanners will increase treatment comfort. 60% think that intraoral scanners will give more aesthetic results, and 34.1% answered “I don’t know”. A total of 83.5% of the participants thought that the use of an oral scanner would not increase the nausea reflex, and 11.8% stated that they had no opinion on this issue. A total of 82.4% of the participants think that intraoral scanners are more expensive than traditional methods.

The answers to the question “There are no usage restrictions for intraoral scanners.” gave a balanced result, with 46.5% saying they don’t know, 33.5% saying no and 20% saying yes.

In the first of the questions in the third part of the study, where students’ perspectives are evaluated, 90.6% of the participants think that the use of an intraoral scanner will satisfy patients more than traditional methods. 8.2% have no idea about this issue.

The future of intraoral scanner technology, the majority of participants (95.3%) think that it will increase, and 4.3% answered that they do not know. None of the participants think that intraoral scanner use will decrease in the future.

Regarding intraoral scanners threatening the importance and effectiveness of dentists in the future, 72.9% of the participants answered no, 14.1% answered yes and 12.9% said they do not know.

DISCUSSION

In recent years, a worldwide effort has been observed to include intraoral scanner applications in dental undergraduate curricula. It is emphasized that these efforts have positive effects on both dental education institutions and students and will provide benefits in the long term despite the difficulties (8). According to the results of this research, it is determined that there is an existing awareness about intraoral scanner technology at Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Dentistry.

Students thought that intraoral scanners could be used mostly in fixed overdenture and implant over prosthetic treatments, and this was followed by treatments such as endocrown/inlay/onlay. Its use in removable prosthetic treatments has been chosen to a lesser extent than other treatments. The reason for this may be that the procedures are more complicated and are not carried out within the faculty. Additionally, the fact that maxillo-facial prostheses have not been reported may be related to the rarity of such cases.

In this study, it was determined that intraoral scanner training was almost never implemented at the undergraduate level. This situation predicts that graduates may be inadequate in using developing technology and may need to compensate for these deficiencies through post-graduation training.

In addition to the fact that the students did not receive direct training, it was determined that the students had general knowledge about intraoral scanners and their perspectives were positive.

According to the expected finding, participants listed the most important advantages of intraoral scanners such as shortened treatment time, increased patient satisfaction, comfort and the possibility of standard production with minimal errors. In addition to these advantages, the participants’ positive perspective on the future of intraoral scanner technology can be concluded that it will be even more prevalent in our lives in the future. In fact, the use of intraoral scanners has increased significantly in the last 10 years compared to when they first came out. Keim et al. stated that in their study in 1981, the rate of digital recording purchase was 11.0%, and in 2011 this rate increased to 58.9% (9).

Today, the innovation of intraoral scanning systems and their use in limited indications are the biggest disadvantages. Features such as sensitivity, clarity, accuracy, and the arm compatibility and passive seating of the restorations obtained in these systems are still the subject of research (10-12). In cases where implants are present, situations such as angle, position, depth, and connection type of the implants can be transferred to the scanner more precisely and without data loss. Even if scanning plastics called Scan Body are used, reflections and glare in the neck area of the implants must be prevented (13).

In addition, due to factors such as prices, learning stages, applicability, and production artifacts of intraoral scanning devices, traditional methods may be used rather than digital methods.

CONCLUSION

The development of new technologies in the field of dentistry requires a certain training process so that these technologies can be used by physicians. With the rapidly developing technology entering our lives, this education is in the process of being indicated in the faculty. It was concluded that although the participants did not receive direct training, they had sufficient awareness about intraoral scanners and thought positively about the use of intraoral scanners.

Conflict of Interest

No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.

Funding

The authors declared that this study has received no financial support.

CC BY license

This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

REFERENCES

1. Morais T, Cunha A, Barbosa I, Palma K. Orthodontic digital workflow: devices and clinical applications. Dental Press J Orthod. 2021;26(06):e21spe6.
2. Ay Ünüvar Y,Geçgelen Cesur M, Bilgiç Zortuk F. Evaluation of digital model use among orthodontists. Selcuk Dent J. 2020;7:466-470.
3. Grünheid, T., McCarthy, SD., Larson, BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014; 146:673–682
4. Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent. 2009; 12:11-28.
5.  J. Gühring,3D-Erfassung ve Objektre Konstruktion Mittels Streifenprojektion. 2002; [Thesis].
6. Icaopino AM. The influence of “new science” on dental education: current concepts, trends, and models for the future. J Dent Educ. 2007;71:450–462.
7. Brownstein SA, Murad A, Hunt RJ. Implementation of new technologies in U.S. dental school curricula. J Dent Educ. 2015;79:259–264.
8. Dehghan M, Simon JF, Harrison J. Integrating the CEREC technology at UT College of Dentistry. J Tenn Dent Assoc. 2012;92:19–21.
9. Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH, Vogels DS. Study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures, part 1: results and trends. J Clin Orthod. 2008; 42: 625-640.
10. Ender A, Mehl A. [Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions–an in-vitro study]. Int J Comput Dent. 2011;14(1):11-21.
11. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring accuracy and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(2):121-128.
12. Hack GD, Patzelt SBM. Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: an invitroinvestigation. American Dental Association. 2015;10(4):1-5.
13. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(6):1687-1694.