What question did this study set out to answer?

This review aims to compare the accuracy, chairside time, and patient perception of digital and conventional impression techniques.

March 29, 2026Frontiers in Oral HealthOpen Access

Evaluation of the patient's perception, reliability and reproducibility, and chairside time with intraoral scanners in adult population—a systematic review

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

This review aims to compare the accuracy, chairside time, and patient perception of digital and conventional impression techniques.
Conducted systematic search in Medline/PubMed, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Scopus.
Included clinical studies comparing conventional and digital impressions based on specified criteria.
Utilized QUADAS-2 tool for quality assessment and Cohen's Kappa for intra-operator agreement.
Identified 10 eligible studies from an initial 269 articles.
Both impression techniques were deemed clinically acceptable, though conventional methods performed better in full-arch scenarios.
Digital impressions were faster and more comfortable for patients.

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Systematic review evaluates accuracy and patient comfort of digital vs. conventional impressions, suggesting advantages for digital methods.

Ramos-Morro et al. (2026) studied this question.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Systematic review evaluates accuracy and patient comfort of digital vs. conventional impressions, suggesting advantages for digital methods.