Daniele Garcovich, Riccardo Aiuto, Alfonso Alvarado Lorenzo, Joseph Bouserhal, Mario Dioguardi, Milagros Adobes Martin
{"title":"Digital Versus Conventional Impression Techniques in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficiency, Comfort and Patient Preference.","authors":"Daniele Garcovich, Riccardo Aiuto, Alfonso Alvarado Lorenzo, Joseph Bouserhal, Mario Dioguardi, Milagros Adobes Martin","doi":"10.1111/ipd.70045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Conventional alginate impressions are widely used in paediatric dentistry but present several limitations. Digital intraoral scanning has emerged as a promising alternative, potentially improving patient experience and clinical efficiency.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>Evaluate whether digital intraoral impressions differ from conventional alginate impressions in efficiency, comfort and acceptance among paediatric patients.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA 2020. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and SIGLE were searched to February 2025. Eligible studies enrolled children receiving both digital and conventional full-arch impressions. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane RoB-1, and data pooled using random-effects models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven studies with 337 children were included. Digital impressions were faster than conventional (mean difference 165.48 s; 95% CI 157.74-173.21; p < 0.00001). Patient-reported outcomes also favoured digital scanning: lower pain (MD 13.03 mm), greater comfort (MD -34.02 mm) and less breathing difficulty (MD 32.51 mm) and gag reflex (MD 38.07 mm), all p < 0.00001. Children were over four times likelier to prefer digital scanning (RR 4.28; 95% CI 1.47-12.44; p = 0.008). Heterogeneity was high but directionally consistent.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Digital intraoral scanning is faster, more comfortable and better accepted than conventional impressions, supporting wider use in paediatric dentistry.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Open Science Framework Registration number: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8EFHS.</p>","PeriodicalId":14268,"journal":{"name":"International journal of paediatric dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of paediatric dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.70045","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Conventional alginate impressions are widely used in paediatric dentistry but present several limitations. Digital intraoral scanning has emerged as a promising alternative, potentially improving patient experience and clinical efficiency.
Aim: Evaluate whether digital intraoral impressions differ from conventional alginate impressions in efficiency, comfort and acceptance among paediatric patients.
Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA 2020. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and SIGLE were searched to February 2025. Eligible studies enrolled children receiving both digital and conventional full-arch impressions. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane RoB-1, and data pooled using random-effects models.
Results: Seven studies with 337 children were included. Digital impressions were faster than conventional (mean difference 165.48 s; 95% CI 157.74-173.21; p < 0.00001). Patient-reported outcomes also favoured digital scanning: lower pain (MD 13.03 mm), greater comfort (MD -34.02 mm) and less breathing difficulty (MD 32.51 mm) and gag reflex (MD 38.07 mm), all p < 0.00001. Children were over four times likelier to prefer digital scanning (RR 4.28; 95% CI 1.47-12.44; p = 0.008). Heterogeneity was high but directionally consistent.
Conclusions: Digital intraoral scanning is faster, more comfortable and better accepted than conventional impressions, supporting wider use in paediatric dentistry.
Trial registration: Open Science Framework Registration number: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8EFHS.
背景：传统的海藻酸盐印模广泛应用于儿科牙科，但存在一些局限性。数字口内扫描已成为一种有希望的替代方法，有可能改善患者体验和临床效率。目的：评估数字口腔内印模在儿科患者的效率、舒适度和接受度方面是否与传统的藻酸盐印模不同。设计：对PRISMA 2020进行系统评价和荟萃分析。PubMed, Scopus， Web of Science和SIGLE检索到2025年2月。符合条件的研究招募了接受数字和传统全弓印模的儿童。采用Cochrane rob1评估偏倚风险，采用随机效应模型汇总数据。结果：纳入7项研究，共337名儿童。数字印模比传统印模更快（平均差165.48 s; 95% CI 157.74-173.21; p）结论：数字口内扫描比传统印模更快、更舒适、更容易被接受，支持在儿科牙科中更广泛的应用。试验注册：开放科学框架注册号：https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8EFHS。
期刊介绍：
The International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry was formed in 1991 by the merger of the Journals of the International Association of Paediatric Dentistry and the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry and is published bi-monthly. It has true international scope and aims to promote the highest standard of education, practice and research in paediatric dentistry world-wide.
International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry publishes papers on all aspects of paediatric dentistry including: growth and development, behaviour management, diagnosis, prevention, restorative treatment and issue relating to medically compromised children or those with disabilities. This peer-reviewed journal features scientific articles, reviews, case reports, clinical techniques, short communications and abstracts of current paediatric dental research. Analytical studies with a scientific novelty value are preferred to descriptive studies. Case reports illustrating unusual conditions and clinically relevant observations are acceptable but must be of sufficiently high quality to be considered for publication; particularly the illustrative material must be of the highest quality.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
