Patient Comfort and Preference During Digital Versus Conventional Impressions for Fixed Prosthodontic Rehabilitation: A Comparative Study.
- 1Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Luxmi Bai Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Patiala, IND.
- 2Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Luxmi Bai Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Patiala, IND.
Abstract
Introduction
Digital impressions are increasingly being used in fixed prosthodontics; however, comparative data on patient-reported comfort and preferences in routine clinical settings remain limited. Thus, this study aimed to compare patient comfort, discomfort symptoms, preferences, and impression time between digital and conventional impression techniques for fixed prosthodontic rehabilitation.Materials and methods
This was a prospective crossover clinical study of adult patients requiring single crowns or short-span fixed partial dentures. Each patient underwent both digital impression using an intraoral scanner and a conventional polyvinyl siloxane impression, with a 14-day interval between procedures. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed immediately after each procedure using a study-specific questionnaire with established face and content validity. Comfort and overall experience were assessed using a 0-10 visual analog scale (VAS), while gagging/choking, breathing difficulty, and anxiety/nervousness were assessed using ordinal response categories. Patient preference for future use of the same technique was recorded as a binary outcome. Impression time was also recorded. Paired t-tests were used for normally distributed continuous outcomes, and McNemar's test was used for paired binary outcomes. A two-sided p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results
A total of 30 patients were included in the study. Digital impressions produced significantly higher comfort scores (8.1 ± 1.2 vs. 5.8 ± 1.5; mean paired difference, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.76 - 2.84; p < 0.001) and overall experience scores (8.2 ± 1.1 vs. 6.0 ± 1.4; mean paired difference, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.70 - 2.70; p < 0.001) than conventional impressions. Gagging/choking was absent in 25 (83.3%) patients with digital impressions compared to 14 (46.7%) with conventional impressions (p = 0.004). Breathing difficulty was absent in 28 (93.3%) and 20 (66.7%) patients with digital impressions and conventional impressions, respectively (p = 0.013), and anxiety/nervousness was absent in 22 (73.3%) and 13 (43.3%) patients with digital impressions and conventional impressions, respectively (p = 0.016). A total of 22 patients (73.3%) preferred the digital technique for future treatment compared with six (20.0%) who preferred the conventional technique (p < 0.001). The mean impression time was significantly shorter with digital than with conventional impressions (5.1 ± 1.1 vs. 8.4 ± 1.7 minutes; mean paired difference, 3.30 minutes; 95% CI, 2.55 - 4.05; p < 0.001).Conclusion
Digital impressions were associated with greater patient-reported comfort, fewer discomfort symptoms, greater preference, and shorter impression time than conventional polyvinyl siloxane impressions in patients who underwent fixed prosthodontic rehabilitation.
Related
- Performance of Contemporary Large Language Models on the National Prosthodontic Resident Examination: A Multi-Year Comparative Study
- Evaluation of Tooth Shade Selection With Conventional Methods and Artificial Intelligence-Integrated Methods: A Comparative Study
- Comparison of Hockey-Stick and Conventional Linear Ultrasound Transducers for Detection of Non-Displaced Dentoalveolar Fractures: An Ex Vivo Paired Comparative Study
- Muscle-Preserving Versus Conventional Midline Expansive Open-Door Laminoplasty for Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A 10-Year Comparative Cohort Study
- Large language models reveal a systematic preference in clinical immunotherapy guidelines: a multi-model comparative analysis
BibTeX
@article{sharma2026patient,
title = {{Patient Comfort and Preference During Digital Versus Conventional Impressions for Fixed Prosthodontic Rehabilitation: A Comparative Study.}},
author = {Amit Sharma and Priyanka Batra and Avneet Kaur and Piyush Sharma and Aprajita Mittal and Ria Arora},
journal = {Cureus},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.7759/cureus.116774},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42921529},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Patient Comfort and Preference During Digital Versus Conventional Impressions for Fixed Prosthodontic Rehabilitation: A Comparative Study.
AU - Amit Sharma
AU - Priyanka Batra
AU - Avneet Kaur
AU - Piyush Sharma
AU - Aprajita Mittal
AU - Ria Arora
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/23
JO - Cureus
DO - 10.7759/cureus.116774
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42921529
AB - Introduction Digital impressions are increasingly being used in fixed prosthodontics; however, comparative data on patient-reported comfort and preferences in routine clinical settings remain limited. Thus, this study aimed to compare patient comfort, discomfort symptoms, preferences, and impression time between digital and conventional impression techniques for fixed prosthodontic rehabilitation.Materials and methods This was a prospective crossover clinical study of adult patients requiring single crowns or short-span fixed partial dentures. Each patient underwent both digital impression using an intraoral scanner and a conventional polyvinyl siloxane impression, with a 14-day interval between procedures. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed immediately after each procedure using a study-specific questionnaire with established face and content validity. Comfort and overall experience were assessed using a 0-10 visual analog scale (VAS), while gagging/choking, breathing difficulty, and anxiety/nervousness were assessed using ordinal response categories. Patient preference for future use of the same technique was recorded as a binary outcome. Impression time was also recorded. Paired t-tests were used for normally distributed continuous outcomes, and McNemar's test was used for paired binary outcomes. A two-sided p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results A total of 30 patients were included in the study. Digital impressions produced significantly higher comfort scores (8.1 ± 1.2 vs. 5.8 ± 1.5; mean paired difference, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.76 - 2.84; p < 0.001) and overall experience scores (8.2 ± 1.1 vs. 6.0 ± 1.4; mean paired difference, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.70 - 2.70; p < 0.001) than conventional impressions. Gagging/choking was absent in 25 (83.3%) patients with digital impressions compared to 14 (46.7%) with conventional impressions (p = 0.004). Breathing difficulty was absent in 28 (93.3%) and 20 (66.7%) patients with digital impressions and conventional impressions, respectively (p = 0.013), and anxiety/nervousness was absent in 22 (73.3%) and 13 (43.3%) patients with digital impressions and conventional impressions, respectively (p = 0.016). A total of 22 patients (73.3%) preferred the digital technique for future treatment compared with six (20.0%) who preferred the conventional technique (p < 0.001). The mean impression time was significantly shorter with digital than with conventional impressions (5.1 ± 1.1 vs. 8.4 ± 1.7 minutes; mean paired difference, 3.30 minutes; 95% CI, 2.55 - 4.05; p < 0.001).Conclusion Digital impressions were associated with greater patient-reported comfort, fewer discomfort symptoms, greater preference, and shorter impression time than conventional polyvinyl siloxane impressions in patients who underwent fixed prosthodontic rehabilitation.
SN - 2168-8184
ER -