Trial reportBMC oral health2025
Comparative evaluation of pediatric patient comfort, time, and preference between digital scans and rubber base impressions: crossover study randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06833385 (Comparative Evaluation of Pediatric Patient Comfort, Time, and Preference Between Digital Scans and Rubber Base Impressions. Crossover Study Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Comparative Evaluation of Pediatric Patient Comfort, Time, and Preference Between Digital Scans and Rubber Base Impressions. Crossover Study Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to assess pediatric patient comfort, time, and preference between digital scans and rubber base impressions. MATERIALS AND
methodsRandomized crossover study in which thirty patients aged 7–11 years underwent an intraoral scan and rubber base (PVS) impressions of both arches, separated by one week. The sequence of impression procedures was determined using block randomization with allocation concealment through sealed envelopes. The two techniques’ impression times were compared. Patients were asked which one they preferred. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was administered to the patient to determine comfort and gag reflex.
results80% of patients preferred a digital scan to a rubber base, which was significant (P = 0.000). The digital scan took a shorter time than the rubber base, with a difference (4.16 ± 0.12; 95% CI: 3.92 to 4.39, p = 0.000). Comfort was significantly higher for digital impressions, with a difference (2.8 ± 0.56; 95% CI: 1.66 to 3.94, p = 0.000), while gag was smaller for digital impressions (0.7 ± 0.29; 95% CI: 0.09 to 1, p = 0.009).
conclusionDigital impressions were better tolerated by children, offering greater comfort, reduced gag reflex, and shorter procedure time compared to conventional impressions. These findings suggest that digital impressions may be a more favorable option for children in clinical practice.
trial registrationThe ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT06833385 13-02-2025.
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.