[^7]
| Issues | Conventional Impressions | Intra-oral (non-digital) Impressions | Technical Efficiency | Clinical Efficiency | Weather | Applications | Other relevant issues |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient related | May provoke undesirable response from patients (e.g. gag reflex, unpleasant taste, etc.) | Some intra-oral scanning can make this difficult to use in patients with small mouths, limited opening or tori | Harder for inexperienced or unskilled to achieve ideal outcomes | Clinical risk variable for multiple reasons (e.g. required time, appointments, adaptation) | Setting environment (e.g. mobile clinics, domiciliary appointments) problematic for traditional impressions e.g. longer setting time | Impressions—requiring disinfection to be transported physically (some flexibility required to address clinical application) | Impressions susceptible to damage before models poured |
| Quality of Outcome | Accuracy and success of final result highly influenced by the ability of the operator to manage soft tissues, technique, environment, and access | Software and hardware still developing and may have errors | Longer processing time, multiple appointments, more rounds to achieve final outcomes | Digital outcomes more predictable with training | Digital impression—cloud sharing—less impacted by temperature or humidity | Intraoral scanning— easier for digitally facilitated workflows; less suitable in some prosthodontic applications (e.g. long spans, multiple prepped teeth) | Compression of soft tissues (e.g. during border moulding functional impressions) important e.g. removable prosthetics |
| Responsibility | Lab may be allocated responsibility for poor result from unclear instruction, poor impressions which can delay treatment | Digital errors can be detected early e.g. real time or from same screen (scanning technique or software issues) | Lab can be made more accountable for case planning and design of appliance by using same digital files | Lab has better visibility of scanned data | N/A | Lab can impact final restoration if designing | Well designed systems—can allocate responsibility to either party |
| Trust in the Technology | Some clinicians feel more confident with conventional impressions— more familiar | Some clinicians do no believe in software results being accurate | Hardware-software interactions, user confidence, errors in scan interpretation may affect real time decision making | Simplifies verification process | N/A | Some resistance from older clinicians | Compatibility, file types, data loss if not synced properly |
| Activity/response time | Time required for materials, costs, risk of damage from poor stone models | Digital editing saves time, avoid mistakes or retakes. Labs receiving scans in real time can improve final result outcomes | Less lag during consults, creates visible documentation | Less time spent processing errors and retakes | Improved logistical and appointment planning and case completion time for patients | File sharing and tracking of treatment stage | Digital files accessible over appointments—improved debugging of lab issues |