Perceptions of Young Patients During Digital and Conventional Impression-Taking: A Comparative Semi-experimental Randomized Study.

Introduction Optical impressions have revolutionized dentistry, but their use in children under 10 years old remains underexplored due to age-specific challenges. Objective This study aimed to evaluate levels of comfort, cooperation, preferences, and time required for conventional versus digital impressions in children consulting at the Dental Consultation and Treatment Center in Casablanca. Methods  This semi-experimental, randomized crossover study compared conventional alginate impression and digital impression in 40 children and adolescents aged 6-14 years. Participants underwent both techniques in a random order, with a seven-day interval between sessions. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and inferential tests (Student's t-test, ANOVA, χ2 test, Fisher's test, McNemar's test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Kruskal-Wallis test) to study associations between sociodemographic characteristics and patient preferences and behaviors regarding dental impressions. Results The mean age of participants was 9.3±2.25 years. Digital impressions were preferred by 62.5% of children, who found them quicker and more comfortable. Around 22.5% of children experienced breathing discomfort and a gag reflex with conventional impressions. About 60% of children found conventional impressions tiring, compared to 17.5% for digital impressions. Around 62.5% of children would choose digital impressions for future procedures, reflecting Gen Z's affinity for interactive experiences. Discussion This study demonstrates that digital impressions with Trios 3 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) are perceived as more comfortable and faster than conventional alginate impressions among children aged 6-14 at the Casablanca center, aligning with prior pediatric research that reports similar advantages of intraoral scanners over traditional methods while noting no major differences in anxiety or behavior. However, the results should be interpreted within the context of a single scanner model and a crossover design. Further multicenter studies with diverse devices and larger samples are warranted to confirm these findings. Conclusion Digital impressions have shown superiority, even among younger patients. Nevertheless, their adoption is hindered by high costs, a steep learning curve, sensitivity to hypersalivation, and head movement. Conventional impressions remain relevant for specific indications, and prior child preparation is crucial for a successful outcome.