Is It Cost Effective to Add an Intraoral Scanner to an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Practice?

Purpose: Intraoral scanners (IOSs), which create digital "impressions" of dental arches, have become popular for prosthetic and orthodontic applications. Adoption in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) practices has been slower, likely because of high implementation costs and low-volume use. The purpose of this study was to evaluate costs for introduction of an IOS into an OMS practice. The authors hypothesized that digital impressions would be more efficient in time and cost compared with conventional impressions and that implementation costs would be offset within 1 year.

Materials And Methods: This was a prospective study that included patients who had digital impressions during the first year after introduction of an IOS to the practice. Conventional alginate impressions obtained at the same visit were included for comparison. Variables included time for each step in each impression process, IOS experience of the operator obtaining the impression, and associated costs. Per-arch costs for each technique were calculated using time-driven activity-based costing methodology.

Results: Sixty-three digital impressions and 31 conventional impressions were included. Mean total times for digital and conventional impressions were 14.1 ± 1.3 and 19.4 ± 4.0 minutes per arch, respectively. On a per-patient basis (2 arches for digital impressions and 4 arches for conventional impressions because of the inability to create duplicate stone models from each alginate impression), total impression times were 24.8 ± 2.7 minutes for digital and 67.2 ± 14.8 minutes for conventional impressions. Total calculated costs for digital and conventional impressions were $21.42 and $29.40 per arch and $37.66 and $102.10 per patient, respectively. In a practice with 2 patients for impressions per working day (500 per year), it would take 1.04 years to offset the purchase of the IOS; with 5 sets of impressions per day (1,250 per year), it would take 5 months.

Conclusion: Digital impressions are more efficient and cost effective than standard impressions, and implementation costs can be offset within the first year.