Time and Cost-implications of Intraoral Scans Vs Alginate Impressions
NCT ID: NCT06345989
Last Updated: 2025-03-05
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
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Clinical Phase
NA
Total Enrollment
68 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2025-03-31
Study Completion Date
2026-03-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
BACKGROUND: Alginate impressions have long been a staple in orthodontics, but with recent technological advancements, digital impressions via intraoral scans are gaining increasing popularity. While much research has focused on patient preference and the accuracy of these techniques, there is a notable gap in the literature regarding chair side time and associated costs. Existing studies on chair side time comparisons between alginate impressions and intraoral scanning yield inconsistent results, underscoring the need for further investigation. This study aimed to evaluate the chair side time and cost implications of intraoral scanning and alginate impressions.
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to compare the chair side time taken for alginate impressions and intraoral scanning of orthodontic patients aged 9 years and over in an orthodontic department at a district general hospital. The secondary objective is to evaluate the costs associated with alginate impressions and intraoral scanning of orthodontic patients described above.
DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, single-centre, parallel-arm randomised controlled trial (1:1 allocation) to be undertaken in a district general hospital. Sixty-eight orthodontic patients aged nine and above, requiring study models, will be recruited during new patient appointments at the Orthodontic Department at Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham. Patients will be randomly assigned to either the intraoral scan or alginate impression group, with chair side time recorded for each procedure, including retakes. The IOS group will use the 3Shape TRIOS scanner, while the alginate group will follow standard procedures. The costs of each technique will be calculated following the procedure. Ethical approval was obtained from a Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee.
OUTCOMES: N/A
CONCLUSIONS: N/A
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to compare the chair side time taken for alginate impressions and intraoral scanning of orthodontic patients aged 9 years and over in an orthodontic department at a district general hospital. The secondary objective is to evaluate the costs associated with alginate impressions and intraoral scanning of orthodontic patients described above.
DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, single-centre, parallel-arm randomised controlled trial (1:1 allocation) to be undertaken in a district general hospital. Sixty-eight orthodontic patients aged nine and above, requiring study models, will be recruited during new patient appointments at the Orthodontic Department at Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham. Patients will be randomly assigned to either the intraoral scan or alginate impression group, with chair side time recorded for each procedure, including retakes. The IOS group will use the 3Shape TRIOS scanner, while the alginate group will follow standard procedures. The costs of each technique will be calculated following the procedure. Ethical approval was obtained from a Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee.
OUTCOMES: N/A
CONCLUSIONS: N/A
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
3D Printed vs. Milled Occlusal Splints in Dentistry
NCT07236294
Wear Comfort
Retention
Stability
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Speed of Premolar Extraction Space Closure: Healed vs Recent Extraction Site
NCT04598490
Orthodontic Appliance
COMPLETED
NA
The Use of 2D and 3D Imaging Modalities and Its Influence on Diagnosis and Treatment Planning in Orthodontics
NCT01246830
Orthodontics
Malocclusion
Impacted Tooth
+3 more
COMPLETED
Intraoral Scanner With and Without Orthodontic Brackets
NCT06340867
Intra-oral Scanner
Adolescent Behavior
COMPLETED
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
RATIONALE: This research project investigates the evolving landscape of orthodontic practices by comparing the time and cost implications of two prevalent techniques: intraoral scanning and traditional alginate impressions.
Whilst the majority of the existing literature reveals patient preference in favour of intraoral scanning, it remains common practice to use alginate impressions for orthodontic records. Considerations such as time implications, device costs, associated software expenses, and the need for clinician training pose challenges to widespread adoption of intraoral scanning. When comparing chairside time taken for intraoral scans versus alginate impressions, there are inconsistent findings, necessitating a comprehensive investigation.
The outcomes of this study will provide crucial insights into the practicality and economic viability of intraoral scanning versus alginate impressions in orthodontic settings, thereby informing clinical practices and facilitating technological assimilation within the United Kingdom. This research contributes to strengthening the evidence base surrounding orthodontic techniques and their implications for patient-centred care.
DESIGN: Prospective single-centre parallel-arm randomised controlled trial, with an allocation ratio of 1:1, to investigate the difference in chair side time and cost of alginate impressions vs intraoral scans.
SETTING: A single-centre study was undertaken in the Orthodontic Department at Queens Medical Centre (QMC), Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA:
* Patients who will not be undergoing orthodontic treatment in secondary care (referral back to primary care).
* Patients who refuse to consent to inclusion in the trial.
* Patients with contraindications to either impression method (e.g., severe gag reflex, claustrophobia, medical history that would preclude the taking of dental impressions).
* Patients with severe dental anxiety.
* Patients with cleft lip and/or palate.
RECRUITMENT: Orthodontic patients aged 9 years and above attending the orthodontic department at Nottingham University Hospital for a new patient assessment will be assessed by an appropriately trained clinician for their eligibility for inclusion in the trial.
CONSENT: The Chief Investigator (CI) retains overall responsibility for the conduct of research, including the taking of informed consent of patients. The CI must ensure that any person delegated responsibility to participate in the informed consent process is duly authorised, trained and competent to participate according to the ethically approved protocol, principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and Declaration of Helsinki.
The clinician will carry out a screening process consisting of a written checklist to assess whether patients meet the inclusion criteria. Following the identification of eligible patients, the trial will be discussed in more detail with the potential patient and/or their parent/guardian. Discussion of the trial will be undertaken by a clinician trained in the REC-approved research protocol. The discussion will involve the following:
* Introduction
* An explanation to the patient and their parent/guardian as to the purpose and the nature of the research
* An outline of what the research involves.
* Involvement
o What would be required by the patient / their child.
* Benefits
* Discussion of any potential benefits that may be involved.
* Risks o Discussion of any potential risks that may be involved.
* Alternatives
o Discussion of the alternative options should the patient and/or their parent/guardian not want to take part in the trial.
* Withdrawal
* Should the patient and/or their parent/guardian wish to withdraw from the study, they may do so at any time and do not have to give a reason as to why they are withdrawing.
* It will be emphasised that should the patient and/or their parent/guardian choose to withdraw from the study, this will not impact the care they receive.
* Questions
o The patient and/or their parent/guardian will be allowed to ask any questions they may have related to the trial.
* Capacity
* The capacity of the patients shall be assessed.
* Patients over the age of 16 may consent to inclusion in the trial should they have the capacity to do so.
* Contact o Information regarding a point of contact for the trial will be given to the patient and/or their parent/guardian.
Any patients who meet the exclusion criteria will not be included in the trial. Following a verbal discussion of the trial, the patient and/or their parent/guardian will be provided with a patient information sheet and given the opportunity to ask any questions before deciding if they would provisionally like to enrol in the trial.
At the beginning of the next visit, the patient's and/or their parent's/guardian's consent to inclusion in the trial will be confirmed. Should the patient and/or their parent/guardian consent to inclusion, the patient will be enrolled in the trial and randomly allocated to a treatment group (either alginate impression or intraoral scan). Informed consent must be obtained before the patient undergoes procedures that are specifically for the trial.
Should the patient and/or their parent/guardian decline to participate in the trial, they will continue with their normal orthodontic treatment and not receive any further information regarding the trial. For children under the age of 16 years, assent will be sought from their parent/guardian. Adults who are unable to consent will not be included in the trial.
Should a patient and/or their parent/guardian wish to withdraw from the trial, they may do so at any point and do not have to stipulate as to why. Patients and/or their parents/guardians will be reassured that withdrawal from the trial will not affect their treatment.
Refusal from the patient to take part in the trial must be respected, and no reason is required. Patients remain free to withdraw from the trial at any time without stipulating why and without prejudicing their further treatment. Patients must be provided with a contact point where they may obtain further information about the trial. Data collected up to the point of withdrawal can only be used after withdrawal if the patient has consented to this.
TRIAL: Once consent has been gained and the patient has been randomly allocated to a treatment group, one of the following procedures will be followed:
Intraoral scanner group
* The 3Shape TRIOS unit will be set up, tip warmed, and patient details entered into the system.
* Timer started: A timer will be started by the dental nurse when the 3Shape TRIOS unit is removed from the holder by the clinician.
* The clinician will complete the scan in the order on the system (lower arch, upper arch and bite registration) and save it to the system.
* Timer stopped: Once the scan taken is of good quality, the clinician will place the 3Shape TRIOS unit back in the holder, and the dental nurse will stop the timer.
* The clinician will check the quality of the scan against example photos, which will demonstrate good quality scans. If the scan does not meet these quality standards, it will require a retake. If any retakes are required, the timer will be resumed, and the procedure will be carried out as above.
* The time taken for the procedure and the number of retakes required will be recorded in the data collection section of the case report form (CRF).
Alginate impression group
* The clinical area will be set up with the appropriate equipment- alginate, water, mixing bowl, spatula, measuring cup, upper and lower trays, adhesive and wax.
* The clinician will check the appropriate tray sizes for the patient.
* The timer started: A timer will be started by the dental nurse when the water for the alginate impression is poured into the mixing bowl.
* The upper and lower impressions will be taken.
* A wax bite registration will then be taken.
* Timer stopped: The timer will be stopped by the dental nurse when the bite registration is removed from the patient's mouth and placed in the designated area on the worktop.
* The clinician will check the quality of the impressions and bite registration against example photos, which will demonstrate good quality impressions/bite registration. If the impressions or bite registration does not meet these quality standards, then they will require a retake. If any retakes are required, the timer will be resumed, and the procedure will be carried out as above.
* The time taken for the procedure, a number of scoops of alginate used and the number of retakes required will be recorded in the data collection section of the CRF.
Measurements taken will only include the chairside time taken to make the impression and will not include time taken for disinfection and processing of impressions.
ANALYSES: Tests for normality will be used to determine whether the data is normally distributed. If the data is normally distributed and with equal variances between the two groups, then a two-sided independent t-test will be used. If the data is not normally distributed, a Mann-Whitney U test will be used.
Whilst the majority of the existing literature reveals patient preference in favour of intraoral scanning, it remains common practice to use alginate impressions for orthodontic records. Considerations such as time implications, device costs, associated software expenses, and the need for clinician training pose challenges to widespread adoption of intraoral scanning. When comparing chairside time taken for intraoral scans versus alginate impressions, there are inconsistent findings, necessitating a comprehensive investigation.
The outcomes of this study will provide crucial insights into the practicality and economic viability of intraoral scanning versus alginate impressions in orthodontic settings, thereby informing clinical practices and facilitating technological assimilation within the United Kingdom. This research contributes to strengthening the evidence base surrounding orthodontic techniques and their implications for patient-centred care.
DESIGN: Prospective single-centre parallel-arm randomised controlled trial, with an allocation ratio of 1:1, to investigate the difference in chair side time and cost of alginate impressions vs intraoral scans.
SETTING: A single-centre study was undertaken in the Orthodontic Department at Queens Medical Centre (QMC), Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA:
* Patients who will not be undergoing orthodontic treatment in secondary care (referral back to primary care).
* Patients who refuse to consent to inclusion in the trial.
* Patients with contraindications to either impression method (e.g., severe gag reflex, claustrophobia, medical history that would preclude the taking of dental impressions).
* Patients with severe dental anxiety.
* Patients with cleft lip and/or palate.
RECRUITMENT: Orthodontic patients aged 9 years and above attending the orthodontic department at Nottingham University Hospital for a new patient assessment will be assessed by an appropriately trained clinician for their eligibility for inclusion in the trial.
CONSENT: The Chief Investigator (CI) retains overall responsibility for the conduct of research, including the taking of informed consent of patients. The CI must ensure that any person delegated responsibility to participate in the informed consent process is duly authorised, trained and competent to participate according to the ethically approved protocol, principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and Declaration of Helsinki.
The clinician will carry out a screening process consisting of a written checklist to assess whether patients meet the inclusion criteria. Following the identification of eligible patients, the trial will be discussed in more detail with the potential patient and/or their parent/guardian. Discussion of the trial will be undertaken by a clinician trained in the REC-approved research protocol. The discussion will involve the following:
* Introduction
* An explanation to the patient and their parent/guardian as to the purpose and the nature of the research
* An outline of what the research involves.
* Involvement
o What would be required by the patient / their child.
* Benefits
* Discussion of any potential benefits that may be involved.
* Risks o Discussion of any potential risks that may be involved.
* Alternatives
o Discussion of the alternative options should the patient and/or their parent/guardian not want to take part in the trial.
* Withdrawal
* Should the patient and/or their parent/guardian wish to withdraw from the study, they may do so at any time and do not have to give a reason as to why they are withdrawing.
* It will be emphasised that should the patient and/or their parent/guardian choose to withdraw from the study, this will not impact the care they receive.
* Questions
o The patient and/or their parent/guardian will be allowed to ask any questions they may have related to the trial.
* Capacity
* The capacity of the patients shall be assessed.
* Patients over the age of 16 may consent to inclusion in the trial should they have the capacity to do so.
* Contact o Information regarding a point of contact for the trial will be given to the patient and/or their parent/guardian.
Any patients who meet the exclusion criteria will not be included in the trial. Following a verbal discussion of the trial, the patient and/or their parent/guardian will be provided with a patient information sheet and given the opportunity to ask any questions before deciding if they would provisionally like to enrol in the trial.
At the beginning of the next visit, the patient's and/or their parent's/guardian's consent to inclusion in the trial will be confirmed. Should the patient and/or their parent/guardian consent to inclusion, the patient will be enrolled in the trial and randomly allocated to a treatment group (either alginate impression or intraoral scan). Informed consent must be obtained before the patient undergoes procedures that are specifically for the trial.
Should the patient and/or their parent/guardian decline to participate in the trial, they will continue with their normal orthodontic treatment and not receive any further information regarding the trial. For children under the age of 16 years, assent will be sought from their parent/guardian. Adults who are unable to consent will not be included in the trial.
Should a patient and/or their parent/guardian wish to withdraw from the trial, they may do so at any point and do not have to stipulate as to why. Patients and/or their parents/guardians will be reassured that withdrawal from the trial will not affect their treatment.
Refusal from the patient to take part in the trial must be respected, and no reason is required. Patients remain free to withdraw from the trial at any time without stipulating why and without prejudicing their further treatment. Patients must be provided with a contact point where they may obtain further information about the trial. Data collected up to the point of withdrawal can only be used after withdrawal if the patient has consented to this.
TRIAL: Once consent has been gained and the patient has been randomly allocated to a treatment group, one of the following procedures will be followed:
Intraoral scanner group
* The 3Shape TRIOS unit will be set up, tip warmed, and patient details entered into the system.
* Timer started: A timer will be started by the dental nurse when the 3Shape TRIOS unit is removed from the holder by the clinician.
* The clinician will complete the scan in the order on the system (lower arch, upper arch and bite registration) and save it to the system.
* Timer stopped: Once the scan taken is of good quality, the clinician will place the 3Shape TRIOS unit back in the holder, and the dental nurse will stop the timer.
* The clinician will check the quality of the scan against example photos, which will demonstrate good quality scans. If the scan does not meet these quality standards, it will require a retake. If any retakes are required, the timer will be resumed, and the procedure will be carried out as above.
* The time taken for the procedure and the number of retakes required will be recorded in the data collection section of the case report form (CRF).
Alginate impression group
* The clinical area will be set up with the appropriate equipment- alginate, water, mixing bowl, spatula, measuring cup, upper and lower trays, adhesive and wax.
* The clinician will check the appropriate tray sizes for the patient.
* The timer started: A timer will be started by the dental nurse when the water for the alginate impression is poured into the mixing bowl.
* The upper and lower impressions will be taken.
* A wax bite registration will then be taken.
* Timer stopped: The timer will be stopped by the dental nurse when the bite registration is removed from the patient's mouth and placed in the designated area on the worktop.
* The clinician will check the quality of the impressions and bite registration against example photos, which will demonstrate good quality impressions/bite registration. If the impressions or bite registration does not meet these quality standards, then they will require a retake. If any retakes are required, the timer will be resumed, and the procedure will be carried out as above.
* The time taken for the procedure, a number of scoops of alginate used and the number of retakes required will be recorded in the data collection section of the CRF.
Measurements taken will only include the chairside time taken to make the impression and will not include time taken for disinfection and processing of impressions.
ANALYSES: Tests for normality will be used to determine whether the data is normally distributed. If the data is normally distributed and with equal variances between the two groups, then a two-sided independent t-test will be used. If the data is not normally distributed, a Mann-Whitney U test will be used.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Alginate Impression
Intraoral Scanner
Time
Cost
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Prospective single-centre parallel arm randomised controlled trial, with an allocation ratio of 1:1 to investigate the difference in chairside time and cost of alginate impressions vs intraoral scans.
Primary Study Purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Blinding Strategy
SINGLE
Outcome Assessors
Due to the nature of the study, blinding to intervention will not be possible for the participants or clinicians during data acquisition. All data analysis will be carried out blinded using a coded data set.
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Alginate impression
Alginate impression
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
Alginate impression
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Alginate impressions are a traditional method for creating dental moulds which are used in orthodontic records. Plastic trays are sized to fit the upper and lower jaws, and the alginate is mixed into a putty before being placed in the trays. The putty is then used to take detailed impressions of the patient's teeth. To capture an accurate bite registration, the patient bites down on a piece of warmed wax.
Intraoral scan
Intraoral scan using Trios 3Shape Scanner
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
Intraoral scan
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Intraoral scanners capture multiple images of the mouth, which are combined to create a three-dimensional model of the patient's upper and lower teeth. The scanning wand is passed methodically over the surface of the teeth to gather all the necessary information, which is displayed in real-time on a computer screen.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Alginate impression
Alginate impressions are a traditional method for creating dental moulds which are used in orthodontic records. Plastic trays are sized to fit the upper and lower jaws, and the alginate is mixed into a putty before being placed in the trays. The putty is then used to take detailed impressions of the patient's teeth. To capture an accurate bite registration, the patient bites down on a piece of warmed wax.
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Intraoral scan
Intraoral scanners capture multiple images of the mouth, which are combined to create a three-dimensional model of the patient's upper and lower teeth. The scanning wand is passed methodically over the surface of the teeth to gather all the necessary information, which is displayed in real-time on a computer screen.
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Orthodontic patients aged 9 years and above requiring study models, having attended the orthodontic department at Nottingham University Hospitals for a new patient assessment.
Exclusion Criteria
* Patients who will not be undergoing orthodontic treatment in secondary care (referral back to primary care).
* Patients who refuse to consent to inclusion in the trial.
* Patients with contraindications to either impression method (e.g., severe gag reflex, claustrophobia, medical history that would preclude the taking of dental impressions).
* Patients with severe dental anxiety.
* Patients with cleft lip and/or palate.
* Patients who refuse to consent to inclusion in the trial.
* Patients with contraindications to either impression method (e.g., severe gag reflex, claustrophobia, medical history that would preclude the taking of dental impressions).
* Patients with severe dental anxiety.
* Patients with cleft lip and/or palate.
Minimum Eligible Age
9 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
OTHER
Sponsor Role
collaborator
University of Sheffield
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Responsibility Role
SPONSOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Norah Flannigan
Role: STUDY_CHAIR
University of Sheffield
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, United Kingdom
Site Status
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
United Kingdom
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
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 Nov;26(4):585-590. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12648. Epub 2023 Mar 20.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
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 Aug;150(2):261-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.12.027.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Burzynski JA, Firestone AR, Beck FM, Fields HW Jr, Deguchi T. Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Apr;153(4):534-541. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.08.017.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Christopoulou I, Kaklamanos EG, Makrygiannakis MA, Bitsanis I, Tsolakis AI. Patient-reported experiences and preferences with intraoral scanners: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2022 Jan 25;44(1):56-65. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjab027.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
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 Nov;89(6):868-875. doi: 10.2319/020619-84.1. Epub 2019 Jul 1.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Grunheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Nov;146(5):673-82. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023. Epub 2014 Oct 28.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Luqmani S, Jones A, Andiappan M, Cobourne MT. A comparison of conventional vs automated digital Peer Assessment Rating scoring using the Carestream 3600 scanner and CS Model+ software system: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020 Feb;157(2):148-155.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.10.011.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
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 Jan 31;12:118-124. doi: 10.2174/1874210601812010118. eCollection 2018.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017 Dec 12;17(1):149. doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Sivaramakrishnan G, Alsobaiei M, Sridharan K. Patient preference and operating time for digital versus conventional impressions: a network meta-analysis. Aust Dent J. 2020 Mar;65(1):58-69. doi: 10.1111/adj.12737. Epub 2019 Dec 19.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Yilmaz H, Aydin MN. Digital versus conventional impression method in children: Comfort, preference and time. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2019 Nov;29(6):728-735. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12566. Epub 2019 Aug 13.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
340246
Identifier Type: REGISTRY
Identifier Source: secondary_id
187157
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
3D-Printed Vs Thermoformed Retainers: Comparison of Post-Treatment Stability, Changes in Mechanical Properties and Patients' OHRQoL
NCT05968625
UNKNOWN
NA
Digital Versus Conventional Impression Techniques in Children
NCT04220957
COMPLETED
NA
The Accuracy of Direct Digital Intra-oral Scanning Measurements Compared to Measurements on Study Models
NCT02364414
COMPLETED
NA
A Clinical Comparison of the Effectiveness of Two Types of Orthodontic Aligning Archwire Materials
NCT04090931
COMPLETED
NA
Effectives of Non-extraction Orthodontic Treatment of Angle Class I Malocclusion
NCT06638983
COMPLETED
NA
Labial Alveolar Bone Thickness and Apical Root Resorption Changes Associated With Self-ligating Versus Conventional Brackets
NCT02816489
UNKNOWN
NA
Efficiency Of Different Intraoral Scanning Techniques In Orthodontic Patients Before And After Brackets Positioning: A Cross Sectional Study
NCT05389969
COMPLETED
The Effect of Timing on Orthodontic Treatment
NCT02010346
UNKNOWN
NA
Evaluation of Segmented Versus Full Arch Three Dimensionally Printed Transfer Tray for Orthodontic Indirect Bonding
NCT03564717
UNKNOWN
NA
Orthodontic Treatment With Clear Aligner
NCT06410105
COMPLETED
NA
Analysis of Orthodontic Tooth Movement Using 3D Imaging
NCT03398798
COMPLETED
NA
Comparison of the Efficiency of Maxillary Canine Retraction Using Aligners Versus Conventional Brackets in Orthodontic Extraction Cases.
NCT04333836
UNKNOWN
NA
Efficiency, Efficacy, Periodontal & Occlusal Outcomes for Aligners Versus Fixed Orthodontic Appliances in Crowded Incisor Treatment
NCT06731465
ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION
NA
Comparison of Perforated 3D Printed Versus Conventional Metal Fixed Bonded Retainer
NCT06851897
RECRUITING
NA
Transfer Accuracy of 3D-printed Indirect Bonding Trays
NCT04683874
COMPLETED
NA
Three-dimensional Assessment of the Bone Changes Accompanying Laser-assisted Orthodontic Tooth Movement
NCT05811728
COMPLETED
NA
Evaluation of Fixed Mandibular Retainer Using 3D Printed Positioning Tray Versus Direct Bonding Technique
NCT03572179
COMPLETED
NA
Clinical Effectiveness of Cobalt Chromium CAD-CAM Designed Customized Lingual Retainer
NCT06837168
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
Evaluation of Treatment Duration of En-masse Versus Two Steps Retraction in Patients Having Maxillary Protrusion
NCT04921579
COMPLETED
NA
Side Effects of Different Treatment Methods
NCT06709287
COMPLETED
RCT Comparing Invisalign and Traditional Orthodontic Treatment
NCT04556448
COMPLETED
NA
Microbial Colonization in Three Dimensional (3D) Printed Orthodontic Clear Aligners
NCT07143370
COMPLETED
NA
Comparison Between the Effectiveness of Different Commercial Bracket Brands
NCT05333094
UNKNOWN
NA
Assessment of Coated Orthodontic Miniscrews With Chlorhexidine Hexametaphosphate Antimicrobial Nanoparticles
NCT06124235
COMPLETED
PHASE3