ArticleJournal of dental education2026
Student Perceptions of Digital Scanning Techniques Compared to Traditional Alginate Impressions.
Article in Journal of dental education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis mixed methods study, framed by Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory, explored allied dental students' perceptions of alginate versus digital impression techniques at a US dental assisting and dental hygiene program in 2024. The central research question was, "What are students' perceptions of taking maxillary alginate impressions as compared to a digital scan of the maxillary arch?" and the sub-question was, "Do students have a preferred technique?"
methodsA mixed methods approach enabled a deeper understanding of student perception through qualitative analysis related to using both the alginate impression and digital scanning techniques, and quantitative analysis related to evaluations of the final impressions and scans. Using Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory as a guide, this research study was centered around a concrete experience with hands-on learning and then student reflection related to the experience and their perceptions or abstract conceptualization. A convenience sample of 30 dental assisting and dental hygiene students currently enrolled in a dental materials course participated. Data collected via questionnaires, behavioral observation, and impression/scan analysis were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. Coding was used to identify key themes in students' perceptions of alginate and digital impression techniques.
resultsFive themes were derived from data collection for both maxillary alginate impressions and maxillary digital scans: emotions/feelings, technique/process, benefits, and drawbacks/obstacles. Overall, participants preferred using digital scanning over alginate impressions. Most students (79% n = 22) perceived alginate impressions as more time intensive despite objective time data suggesting otherwise. There was a statistically significant difference in the average time to complete an alginate impression compared to the digital impression. There was no difference in digital impression quality between dental assisting and dental hygiene students, and dental assisting students expressed more apprehension when using the alginate impression technique compared to dental hygiene students.
conclusionEchoing previous research, students recognized the advantages of digital scans, such as improved patient education, comfort, and ease of cleanup. Conversely, they shared concerns about the time constraints and rushed feeling associated with alginate impressions, also previously documented.
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.