No significant difference of the marginal parameters between the digital and the conventional group was found.
Click and read the whole article if you want the details. However the conclusion speaks for itself. Digital impressions are just as accurate as conventional impressions. Plus, although this is not stated in the article, digital impressions are much easier to take and have much fewer potential errors. If an error is detected it is simple to add to the data and fix the digital impression. This is not possible with conventional materials. All this translates to fewer re-makes.
What is holding you back? Why haven’t dentists eagerly abandoned old goo impressions in favor of digital impressions?
A major factor is cost. Digital impression systems are expensive. It is easy to project a substantial return on investment for digital systems however all the projections assume a continued or increased busyness. What if I invest $80,000 and the economy turns and people stop wanting crowns and onlays?
A related concern is obsolescence. What if I invest $80,000 and a new machine that is faster and better comes out in six months that only costs $75,000? However many dentists would refuse to use a digital impression system even if it was given to them for free.
The biggest challenge when it comes to adopting new technology is not the expense or the technology itself it is the people using it. For most of us it is much easier to stay in our comfortable familiar rut than to break out and try something new. As a general rule in order for people to generally start using a new technology it is not nearly enough if the new technology is just as good as or a little better than the existing system. The new system must be much much better than the old one. Why change if there is no or limited benefit?
You owe it to yourself and your patients to consider digital impressions in the coming year.