Intraoral scanning versus conventional impressions for working time and patient discomfort: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: Intraoral scanning (IOS) is increasingly used as a digital alternative to conventional impressions, yet reported benefits for chairside efficiency and patient experience vary across studies. This review quantified differences in working time and patient-reported discomfort and explored effects by age and conventional impression material.Materials and Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and RISS were searched in accordance with PRISMA 2020 for randomized or prospective comparative studies. Random-effects meta-analyses pooled mean differences (MD) for working time and Hedges’ g standardized mean differences (SMD) for discomfort on visual analog scales. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted by age group and conventional impression material.Results: Fifteen studies were included. IOS shortened working time (MD −3.39 min; 95% CI −5.16 to −1.62), with larger time savings versus polyvinyl siloxane and polyether than alginate. IOS also reduced discomfort (SMD −1.24; 95% CI −1.53 to −0.94), with consistent benefits across materials and across adult and pediatric populations.Conclusion: IOS improves patient comfort and modestly reduces chairside time compared with conventional impressions. These findings support IOS use in routine clinical practice and suggest that time reductions are more pronounced when conventional impressions use polyvinyl siloxane or polyether rather than alginate