Skip to content

Comparative Evaluation of Pediatric Patient Comfort, Time, and Preference Between Digital Scans and Rubber Base Impressions. Crossover Study Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparative Evaluation of Pediatric Patient Comfort, Time, and Preference Between Digital Scans and Rubber Base Impressions. Crossover Study Randomized Controlled Trial

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT06833385
Enrollment
30
Registered
2025-02-18
Start date
2025-02-01
Completion date
2025-04-01
Last updated
2025-02-18

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Pediatric Patient With Early Loss of Primary Teeth

Brief summary

The comfort of impression methods and the time they require are important because it is known that children are more stressed in their encounter with the dentist than the elderly, and their chairside times are shorter. The comparison of impression methods in terms of comfort, preference, and time has been studied only in young adults or adult patients. thus this study will assess pediatric patient comfort, time, and preference between digital scans and rubber base impressions.

Interventions

DIAGNOSTIC_TESTIntraoral Scanning

Participants will first undergo intraoral scanning using a digital scanner to capture a 3D image of their dental arches. The procedure is non-invasive and requires no impression material. After one week, the same participants will undergo a polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression using conventional impression trays and materials

DIAGNOSTIC_TESTPVS Impression

Participants will first undergo a polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression, where an impression tray filled with PVS material is used to capture the shape of their dental arches. After one week, the same participants will undergo intraoral scanning using a digital scanner for a 3D image of their dentition.

Sponsors

Yasmine Ahmed Mortada Abd Elfatah
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
6 Years to 11 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* cooperative healthy 6-11 years old child

Exclusion criteria

* uncooperative with experience with technique

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Patient Preference for Impression TechniqueImmediately after the second impression (within the same visit)

Countries

Egypt

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026