Digital Versus Conventional Impression Techniques in Children

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

24 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2021-09-11

Study Completion Date

2022-04-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The impression is a necessary step for the orthodontic diagnosis. Digital impression has recently been introduced by means of intraoral optical scanners. To date, few studies have compared the conventional alginate impression with the digital impression with intraoral scanners. These studies have shown that digital impression could have some advantages in terms of satisfaction and less discomfort for the pediatric patient. Only one study is randomized and has analyzed patients between 10 and 17 years of age. There are, therefore, no randomized trials for patients under 10 years of age.

The objective of the study is to compare the conventional alginate impression with the digital impression of both dental arches in orthodontic patients between 6 and 10 years of age with a randomized crossover design. In particular, the preference, comfort, impression taking time and other subjective aspects will be analyzed. This is a monocentric, controlled, superiority, randomized, crossover, open study.

Inclusion criteria:

\- Orthodontic patients between 6 and 10 years of age.

Exclusion criteria:

* Noncompliant patients
* patients with syndromes or systemic diseases
* patients suffering from cleft lip and palate. The patient will be asked which of the 2 dental arch impression procedures they prefer. In addition, patients will be provided with a questionnaire including VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) for comfort, pain, gag reflex and breathing difficulty. The VAS will consist of scales from 0 to 10.

As for the calculation of the sample size, this has been done by considering a null hypothesis for a proportion of 50% in the preference between the two treatments and an alternative hypothesis of 80%. For alpha set at 0.05, a power of 80% and a dropout rate of 10%, 24 patients are required.

Descriptive statistics will be performed for all variables (frequency and percentage for qualitative variables and mean and standard deviation for quantitative variables). For the primary endpoint variable, impression procedure preference, the test will be performed for one proportion and the 95% confidence interval will be calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.

With regard to the secondary endpoint variables, duration of the procedure, comfort, pain, gag reflex, breathing difficulty, the 2 procedures will be compared with the t-test for paired data.

An Intention-To-Treat analysis will be performed. In case more than 5 deviations from the protocol will occur, a sensitivity analysis will also be performed per protocol.

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

Orthodontic Patient Experience of Intraoral Scans Versus Alginate Impressions

NCT05194956

Orthodontic Patient Experience

COMPLETED NA

Time and Cost-implications of Intraoral Scans Vs Alginate Impressions

NCT06345989

Alginate Impression Intraoral Scanner Time +1 more

NOT_YET_RECRUITING NA

Quantification of the Differences in the Diagnostic Relationships Between Centric Occlusion Versus Maximum Intercuspation in Adult Orthodontic Patients : A Cross-sectional Study

NCT06220955

Centric Relation Registration

RECRUITING

Efficiency Of Different Intraoral Scanning Techniques In Orthodontic Patients Before And After Brackets Positioning: A Cross Sectional Study

NCT05389969

Digital Orthodontics

COMPLETED

Evaluation of Treatment Duration of En-masse Versus Two Steps Retraction in Patients Having Maxillary Protrusion

NCT04921579

Bimaxillary Protrusion

COMPLETED NA

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Dental Impression Technique

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

CROSSOVER

Primary Study Purpose

DIAGNOSTIC

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Digital Impression Technique

Impression with an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3, 3Shape, Denmark)

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Digital Impression Technique

Intervention Type OTHER

Digital impressions of both arches will be taken by using an intraoral scanner (Trios 3, 3Shape, Denmark) by adhering to the scanning pattern recommended by the company for routine diagnosis and recording.

Conventional Impression Technique

Conventional impression with alginate (Orthoprint, Zhermack)

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Conventional Impression Technique

Intervention Type OTHER

Conventional Impression Technique of both arches will be taken with alginate (Orthoprint, Zhermack) on conventional stainless steel impression trays.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Digital Impression Technique

Digital impressions of both arches will be taken by using an intraoral scanner (Trios 3, 3Shape, Denmark) by adhering to the scanning pattern recommended by the company for routine diagnosis and recording.

Intervention Type OTHER