Comparison of Patient Comfort and Preference between Conventional and Digital Impressions in Adolescents with Multibracket Appliance : A Randomised Crossover Study

Ashish Kallur; Shweta Nagesh; Ramanarayana Boyapati; Balaram Kolasani; Madhulatha Jetti

doi:10.15311/selcukdentj.1747722

Comparison of Patient Comfort and Preference between Conventional and Digital Impressions in Adolescents with Multibracket Appliance : A Randomised Crossover Study

Abstract

Background: Digital impression techniques are currently replacing conventional techniques in clinical practice. The applicability of these methods are being studied extensively. The primary objective of this study was to compare pain, discomfort, gag reflex, and breathing difficulty between alginate impressions and intraoral scanning (IOS) in adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment. The secondary objective was to assess preference and compare the time required for both techniques. Methods: A randomized crossover trial was conducted with 24 adolescent patients aged between 12–17 years. Participants were randomised into Group 1 and Group 2 based on the sequence of the technique and a wash out period of one week was given before the second technique. Pain, discomfort, gag reflex, and breathing difficulty were assessed using a 10-point Likert scale. Time taken for each impression and patient preference were also recorded. Dependent t-tests was used to compare the patient outcomes and time taken. Results: No significant differences were found in patient-reported outcomes (pain, discomfort, gag reflex, and breathing difficulty) between the two techniques. However, intraoral scanning required less time compared to alginate impressions (p < 0.001). Majority of patients (66.67%) preferred IOS over alginate impressions. Conclusion: In adolescents with fixed orthodontic appliances, intraoral scanning was time-efficient alternative to conventional impression techniques, with a high patient preference. Both techniques were comparable in terms of discomfort-related outcomes.

Keywords

References

1. Bhatia N, Muthuswamy Pandian S. Evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch impressions between three different intraoral scanners and conventional impressions: a prospective in vivo study. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2024;18(1):77–84.
2. Thakkar D, Benattia A, Bichu YM, Zou B, Aristizabal JF, Fadia D, et al. Seamless workflows for in-house aligner fabrication. Semin Orthod. 2023;29(1):17–24.
3. 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. Angle Orthod. 2019;89(6):868–75.
4. Sindhu S, Maiti S, Nallaswamy D. Factors affecting the accuracy of intraoral scanners: a systematic review. Ann Dent Spec. 2023;11(1):40–52.
5. Yılmaz H, Özlü FÇ, Karadeniz C, Karadeniz Eİ. Efficiency and accuracy of three-dimensional models versus dental casts: a clinical study. Turk J Orthod. 2019;32(4):214–8.
6. 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. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;150(2):261–7.
7. Serrano-Velasco D, Martín-Vacas A, Cintora-López P, Paz-Cortés MM, Aragoneses JM. Comparative analysis of the comfort of children and adolescents in digital and conventional full-arch impression methods: a crossover randomized trial. Children. 2024;11(2):190.
8. Yilmaz H, Aydin MN. Digital versus conventional impression method in children: comfort, preference and time. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2019;29(6):728–35.

9. Prasad KN, Sahoo N, Rami Reddy MS, Gupta P, Sreedhar S, Krishnan A. Evaluation of current trends in the storage of orthodontic records among orthodontic postgraduate students. World J Dent. 2021;12(3):223–9.
10. Amaral Vargas EO, Otero Amaral Vargas D, da Silva Coqueiro R, Franzotti Sant'anna E, Melo Pithon M. Impact of orthodontic brackets on intraoral and extraoral scans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022;162(2):208–13.
11. Kang SJ, Kee YJ, Lee KC. Effect of the presence of orthodontic brackets on intraoral scans. Angle Orthod. 2021;91(1):98–104.
12. Selvaraj A, Saravana Dinesh SP, Sivakumar A, Arvind TRP, Albar DH, Alshehri A, et al. Evaluation of scanning accuracy for two commercially available intraoral scanners in reproducing orthodontic bracket dimensions. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2023;27(17):7898–906.
13. Park JM, Choi SA, Myung JY, Chun YS, Kim M. Impact of orthodontic brackets on the intraoral scan data accuracy. Biomed Res Int. 2016; 2016:5075182.
14. 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. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2023;26(4):585–90.
15. Patel C, Barot GN, Patel MC, Nath KJ, Patel SP, Patel DK. Accuracy and comfort in digital and conventional impression in pediatric dental patients: a randomized comparative study. Cureus. 2025;17(1): e76882.
16. Mangano A, Beretta M, Luongo G, Mangano C, Mangano F. Conventional vs digital impressions: acceptability, treatment comfort and stress among young orthodontic patients. Open Dent J. 2018; 12:118–24.
17. Yılmaz H, Çakmak Özlü F, Karadeniz C, Karadeniz Eİ. Time-efficiency and accuracy of three-dimensional models versus dental casts: a clinical study. Turk J Orthod. 2019;32(4):214–8.
18. Bock NC, Klaus K, Liebel MM, Ruf S, Wöstmann B, Schlenz MA. What to prefer in patients with multibracket appliances? Digital vs conventional full-arch impressions: a reference aid-based in vivo study. J Clin Med. 2023;12(9):3071.
19. Thomas AA, Jain RK. Influence of operator experience on scanning time and accuracy with two different intraoral scanners: a prospective clinical trial. Turk J Orthod. 2023;36(1):10–4.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Ashish Kallur
0009-0003-7793-1954
India

Shweta Nagesh ^*
0000-0002-1921-1604
India

Ramanarayana Boyapati
0000-0002-9196-0183
India

Balaram Kolasani
0009-0009-2025-4773
United States

Madhulatha Jetti
0000-0002-2951-3788
India

Publication Date

April 27, 2026

Submission Date

July 25, 2025

Acceptance Date

January 2, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 13 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1747722

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA88WJ43JA

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Kallur, A., Nagesh, S., Boyapati, R., Kolasani, B., & Jetti, M. (2026). Comparison of Patient Comfort and Preference between Conventional and Digital Impressions in Adolescents with Multibracket Appliance : A Randomised Crossover Study. Selcuk Dental Journal, 13(1), 139-143. https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1747722

AMA

1.Kallur A, Nagesh S, Boyapati R, Kolasani B, Jetti M. Comparison of Patient Comfort and Preference between Conventional and Digital Impressions in Adolescents with Multibracket Appliance : A Randomised Crossover Study. Selcuk Dent J. 2026;13(1):139-143. doi:10.15311/selcukdentj.1747722

Chicago

Kallur, Ashish, Shweta Nagesh, Ramanarayana Boyapati, Balaram Kolasani, and Madhulatha Jetti. 2026. “Comparison of Patient Comfort and Preference Between Conventional and Digital Impressions in Adolescents With Multibracket Appliance : A Randomised Crossover Study”. Selcuk Dental Journal 13 (1): 139-43. https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1747722.

EndNote

Kallur A, Nagesh S, Boyapati R, Kolasani B, Jetti M (April 1, 2026) Comparison of Patient Comfort and Preference between Conventional and Digital Impressions in Adolescents with Multibracket Appliance : A Randomised Crossover Study. Selcuk Dental Journal 13 1 139–143.

IEEE

[1]A. Kallur, S. Nagesh, R. Boyapati, B. Kolasani, and M. Jetti, “Comparison of Patient Comfort and Preference between Conventional and Digital Impressions in Adolescents with Multibracket Appliance : A Randomised Crossover Study”, Selcuk Dent J, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 139–143, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.15311/selcukdentj.1747722.

ISNAD

Kallur, Ashish - Nagesh, Shweta - Boyapati, Ramanarayana - Kolasani, Balaram - Jetti, Madhulatha. “Comparison of Patient Comfort and Preference Between Conventional and Digital Impressions in Adolescents With Multibracket Appliance : A Randomised Crossover Study”. Selcuk Dental Journal 13/1 (April 1, 2026): 139-143. https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1747722.

JAMA

1.Kallur A, Nagesh S, Boyapati R, Kolasani B, Jetti M. Comparison of Patient Comfort and Preference between Conventional and Digital Impressions in Adolescents with Multibracket Appliance : A Randomised Crossover Study. Selcuk Dent J. 2026;13:139–143.

MLA

Kallur, Ashish, et al. “Comparison of Patient Comfort and Preference Between Conventional and Digital Impressions in Adolescents With Multibracket Appliance : A Randomised Crossover Study”. Selcuk Dental Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, Apr. 2026, pp. 139-43, doi:10.15311/selcukdentj.1747722.

Vancouver

1.Ashish Kallur, Shweta Nagesh, Ramanarayana Boyapati, Balaram Kolasani, Madhulatha Jetti. Comparison of Patient Comfort and Preference between Conventional and Digital Impressions in Adolescents with Multibracket Appliance : A Randomised Crossover Study. Selcuk Dent J. 2026 Apr. 1;13(1):139-43. doi:10.15311/selcukdentj.1747722