ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparative Analysis of the Comfort of Children and Adolescents in Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impression Methods: A Crossover Randomized Trial.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Dentistry in Clinical Practice: A Scoping Review of Current Capabilities and Future Directions.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- From Alginate to Pixel: Comparing the Effect of Two Dental Impression Methods on Children's Anxiety.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Accuracy of Digital Impressions versus Conventional Impressions in Neonates with Cleft Lip and/or Palate: A Laboratory-Based Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparison between Conventional and Digital Workflow in Implant Prosthetic Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the comfort of children and adolescents with conventional full-arch dental impression methods compared to two intraoral scanners (iTero
methodsA monocentric, analytical, controlled crossover study was designed to compare conventional impression and digital impression with two intraoral scanners (iTero
resultsA total of 51 subjects were enrolled in the study (mean age = 12.35 years). Although the group of 10-14-year-olds was the most numerous, gender was equally distributed among the age groups. None of the variables on the VAS scale showed differences between the gender categories (
conclusionsThe digital impression technique is superior in terms of total comfort to the conventional alginate impression in children and adolescents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.