Intraoral scanners in children: evaluation of the patient perception, reliability and reproducibility, and chairside time—A systematic review

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the perception of the patient, the chairside time, and the reliability and/or reproducibility of intraoral scanners for full arch in pediatric patients.MethodsA data search was performed in four databases (Medline-Pubmed, Scopus, ProQuest and Web of Science) in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statements. Studies were classified in three categories (patient perception, scanning or impression time and reliability and/or reproducibility). The resources, the data extraction and the quality assessment were carried out independently by two operators. The variables recorded were population characteristics, material and methods aspects and included country, study design and main conclusion. A quality assessment of the selected studies was performed with QUADAS-2 tool, and Kappa-Cohen Index was calculated to analyze examiner agreement.ResultsThe initial search obtained 681 publications, and finally four studies matching inclusion criteria were selected. The distribution of the studies in the categories was three for the analysis of the patient's perception and scanning or impression time; and two items to assess the reliability and/or reproducibility of intraoral scans. All included studies have a repeated measures–transversal design. The sample size ranged between 26 and 59 children with a mean age. The intraoral scanners evaluated were Lava C.O.S, Cerec Omnicam, TRIOS Classic, TRIOS 3-Cart and TRIOS Ortho. The quality assessment of the studies using QUADAS-2 tool revealed a low risk of bias while evaluating patient perception, but an unclear risk of bias in the analysis of accuracy or chairside time. In relation to the applicability concerns, the patient selection was of high risk of bias. All studies agreed that the patient perception and comfort is better with intraoral scanners in comparison with the conventional method. The accuracy or reliability of the digital procedure is not clear, being clinically acceptable. In relation with the chairside time, it depends on the intraoral scanner, with contradictory data in the different analyzed studies.ConclusionThe use of intraoral scanners in children is a favorable option, finding a significantly higher patient perception and comfort with intraoral scanners compared to the conventional impression method. The evidence for reliability or reproducibility is not strong to date, however, the differences between the intraoral measurements and the digital models would be clinically acceptable.

Clinician- and Patient-Centred Outcomes of Digital Impressions in Infants with Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review

“…Concerning clinician-centred outcomes, a critical factor to consider is the comparative accuracy of digital and conventional impressions in infants with CLP. The findings of this systematic review, indicating comparable accuracy between digital and conventional impressions in infants with cleft lip and palate (CLP), are consistent with prior research that has indicated the potential of digital impressions in paediatric dentistry [ 45 ]. Nevertheless, the precise manner in which scanning techniques, such as the utilisation of a variety of scanners and scanning strategies and the implementation of smaller scanning tips, affect the accuracy of digital impressions remains uncertain, particularly with regard to their effect on the trueness and precision components of accuracy [ 46 , 47 ].…”

Comparative Analysis of the Comfort of Children and Adolescents in Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impression Methods: A Crossover Randomized Trial

“…The aim of the study was to evaluate the comfort of children and adolescents with intraoral scanning procedures compared to the conventional method by comparing a widely used and studied scanner (iTero TM ) with another recently commercialized one (Primescan TM ). As reported in recent systematic reviews, intraoral scans seem to be a promising method for both adult [12] and pediatric [20] patients. Although children and adolescents make up most patients susceptible to orthodontic treatment, many studies conducted on perception, comfort, and preference have been performed on adult patients [3,4].…”