ArticleCureus2026
Patient Satisfaction With Digital Versus Conventional Impression Techniques in Clear Aligner Therapy: A Questionnaire-Based Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Clear aligner therapy has gained popularity because of its esthetic appeal and patient-friendly nature. The impression-making process plays a crucial role in shaping a patient's experience and treatment acceptance. With the increasing use of digital technologies, it is important to evaluate whether digital impressions improve patient satisfaction compared with conventional techniques. The aim of this study was to compare patient satisfaction between digital and conventional impression techniques and to evaluate patient-reported comfort and fit of aligners fabricated using these methods. Materials and methods This prospective questionnaire-based study included 50 patients aged 13-30 years who required mild orthodontic correction. Each participant underwent both digital impressions using an intraoral scanner and conventional impressions using polyvinyl siloxane on separate occasions. Clear aligners were fabricated using both techniques, and patient satisfaction was assessed using a validated self-designed questionnaire. The evaluated parameters included comfort, breathing difficulty, gag reflex, anxiety, perceived duration, aligner fit, distortion, and ease of speech. Data were analyzed using non-parametric tests, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Results Digital impression techniques demonstrated significantly higher patient satisfaction across all evaluated parameters, including comfort, pleasantness, breathing ease, absence of gag reflex, and overall experience (p = 0.001 for most comparisons). Patients also showed greater willingness for repetition with digital methods (p = 0.005). Digitally fabricated aligners were associated with significantly better tray comfort, fit, and reduced distortion (p = 0.001). However, no statistically significant difference was observed between digital and conventional techniques in terms of ease of speech (p = 0.062). Overall satisfaction scores were significantly higher for the digital workflow (p = 0.001). Conclusion Digital impression techniques significantly enhanced patient satisfaction and acceptance of clear aligner therapy. Improved comfort during impression-making and a better perceived aligner fit may contribute to increased compliance. Incorporating digital workflows into orthodontic practice can optimize patient-centered outcomes and improve the overall treatment experience.
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.