Patient-related outcomes of conventional impression making versus intraoral scanning for prosthetic rehabilitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Statement of problem Intraoral scanning has been reported to be preferred by patients over conventional impression making. Nevertheless, information regarding patient-related outcomes for conventional impression making and digital scanning is sparse. Purpose The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze patient-related outcomes of intraoral scanning and conventional impression methods. The primary outcomes evaluated were patient preference and satisfaction, and the secondary outcomes discomfort, nausea, unpleasant taste, breathing difficulty, pain, and anxiety. Material and methods Electronic and manual searches were performed for clinical trials that evaluated patient-related outcomes for intraoral scanning and conventional impression making for prosthetic rehabilitation. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of the studies. Random-effects models using mean difference were used for meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics (α=.05). Results The search strategy identified 1626 articles, and 11 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Patients preferred intraoral scanning to conventional impression making. The mean difference for patient preference was 15.02 (95% confidence interval of 8.33 – 21.73; P<.001). Discomfort, absence of nausea, absence of unpleasant taste, and absence of breathing difficulty were also significantly different (P<.05). Conclusions Intraoral scanning is a suitable alternative to conventional impression procedures, promoting less discomfort for patients sensitive to taste, nausea, and breathing difficulty than when conventional impression making techniques are used.