Evaluation of intraoral scanners for comfort in pediatric patients: a randomized crossover study

Background: This study evaluate the comfort of two widely used intraoral scanning devices, Itero™ and 3Shape™, in pediatric patients. Methods: A total of 68 children aged 9–12 years in the mixed dentition period participated in this single-center, analytical, controlled cross-sectional study. Comfort levels were assessed using the Animated Emoji Scale (AES) following intraoral scanning. Statistical analyses were conducted with a 95% confidence level (p ≤ 0.05). Results: No statistically significant difference was observed between the two devices in terms of gender-based comfort (p > 0.05), and the participants did not report pain, nausea, or breathing difficulties with either device (p > 0.05). The performance times of both scanners were comparable (p > 0.05). Although no dry mouth sensation was reported, children exhibited greater engagement with the screen when using the Itero™ scanner (p > 0.05). The 3Shape™ scanner was significantly louder than the Itero™ (p < 0.05), while the intraoral camera head of the Itero™ was perceived as less comfortable than that of the 3Shape™ (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Pediatric patients were generally satisfied with both intraoral scanning procedures, and factors such as a smaller intraoral camera head, quieter operation and larger display screens were identified as important for enhancing patient comfort.

Orthodontics; Pediatric dentistry; Digital dental impression; Patient comfort

[1] Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, Viguie G, Viennot S, Robinson P, et al. Intraoral scanner technologies: a review to make a successful impression. Journal of Healthcare Engineering. 2017; 2017: 8427595.

[2] Akarçay Ç, Ulu Güzel KG. Use of intraoral scanner and CAD/CAM systems in pediatric dentistry. ADO Journal of Clinical Sciences. 2022; 11: 78–84. (In Turkish)

[3] Porter JL, Carrico CK, Lindauer SJ, Tüfekçi E. Comparison of intraoral and extraoral scanners on the accuracy of digital model articulation. Journal of Orthodontics. 2018; 45: 275–282.

[4] Eggmann F, Blatz MB. Recent advances in intraoral scanners. Journal of Dental Research. 2024; 103: 1349–1357.

[5] Bandiaky ON, Le Bars P, Gaudin A, Hardouin JB, Cheraud-Carpentier M, Mbodj EB, et al. Comparative assessment of complete-coverage, fixed tooth-supported prostheses fabricated from digital scans or conventional impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2022; 127: 71–79.

[6] D’Ambrosio F, Giordano F, Sangiovanni G, Di Palo MP, Amato M. Conventional versus digital dental impression techniques: what is the future? An umbrella review. Prosthesis. 2023; 5: 851–875.

[7] Burhardt L, Livas C, Kerdijk W, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y. Treatment comfort, time perception, and preference for conventional and digital impression techniques: a comparative study in young patients. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2016; 150: 261–267.

[8] Glisic O, Hoejbjerre L, Sonnesen L. A comparison of patient experience, chair-side time, accuracy of dental arch measurements and costs of acquisition of dental models. The Angle Orthodontist. 2019; 89: 868–875.

[9] Yilmaz H, Aydin MN. Digital versus conventional impression method in children: comfort, preference and time. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2019; 29: 728–735.

[10] Park SH, Byun SH, Oh SH, Lee HL, Kim JW, Yang BE, et al. Evaluation of the reliability, reproducibility and validity of digital orthodontic measurements based on various digital models among young patients. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2020; 9: 2728.

[11] Liczmanski K, Stamm T, Sauerland C, Blanck-Lubarsch M. Accuracy of intraoral scans in the mixed dentition: a prospective non-randomized comparative clinical trial. Head & Face Medicine. 2020; 16: 11.

[12] Christopoulou I, Kaklamanos EG, Makrygiannakis MA, Bitsanis I, Tsolakis AI. Patient-reported experiences and preferences with intraoral scanners: a systematic review. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2022; 44: 56–65.

[13] Serrano-Velasco D, Martín-Vacas A, Paz-Cortés MM, Giovannini G, Cintora-López P, Aragoneses JM. Intraoral scanners in children: evaluation of the patient perception, reliability and reproducibility, and chairside time—a systematic review. Frontiers in Pediatrics. 2023; 11: 1213072.

[14] Burzynski JA, Firestone AR, Beck FM, Fields HW III, Deguchi T. Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: time and patient satisfaction. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2018; 153: 534–541.

[15] Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014; 14: 10.

[16] Bosoni C, Nieri M, Franceschi D, Souki BQ, Franchi L, Giuntini V. Comparison between digital and conventional impression techniques in children on preference, time and comfort: a crossover randomized controlled trial. Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research. 2023; 26: 585–590.

[17] Khatri A, Kalra N, Tyagi R, Sharma M, Yangdol P, Garg N. Evaluation of pain in children using animated emoji scale: a novel selfreporting pain assessment tool. Article in International Journal of Pedodontic. 2021; 6: 20–24.

[18] Buchanan H, Niven N. Validation of a facial image scale to assess child dental anxiety. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2002; 12: 47–52.

[19] Davangere Padmanabh SK, Ahire S, Mulchandani V, Upendrabhai MJ, Trivedi M, Joshi AB. Assessment of children’s emotions before, during, and after the dental treatment procedure: an emoji-based study. Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2022; 40: 417–422.

[20] Rangel FA, Chiu YT, Maal TJ, Bronkhorst EM, Bergé SJ, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Does powdering of the dentition increase the accuracy of fusing 3D stereophotographs and digital dental casts. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2016; 38: 440–445.

[21] Al-Hassiny A, Végh D, Bányai D, Végh Á, Géczi Z, Borbély J, et al. User experience of intraoral scanners in dentistry: transnational questionnaire study. International Dental Journal. 2023; 73: 754–759.

[22] Lione R, De Razza FC, Gazzani F, Lugli L, Cozza P, Pavoni C. Accuracy, time, and comfort of different intraoral scanners: an in vivo comparison study. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14: 7731.