Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 19, 2025

Measuring the Complete-arch Distortion of an Optical Dental Impression
Published on: May 30, 2019
Dental students' preference and perception on intraoral scanning and impression making
Walter Yu-Hang Lam1, Ken Chung-Kan Mak2, Ebrahim Maghami3
1Prosthodontics, Restorative Dental Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, 34 Hospital Road, Prince Philip Dental Hospital Sai Ying Pun, Hong Kong SAR, China. retlaw@hku.hk.
Background:
To investigate the preference and perception on intraoral scanning and impression making among dental students.
Methods:
Final-year dental students from the 2019 and 2020 cohorts were invited to complete an online questionnaire via Google-Form. Their preference on the intraoral-scanning/impression making techniques and their perception on these techniques including the ease of defect identification, ease of infection control, need of chairside support, ease to master the technique as a beginner, efficiency in their hands and ease to handle the scanner software (yes/no) were collected. The results were analysed using McNemar tests and binary logistic regression test. All tests were performed at significance level α = 0.05.
Results:
Ninety-seven students participated in this study with a response rate of 96.0 %. Eighty-one students (83.5 %) have tried intraoral scanning on peers. Fifty-three (54.6 %) students preferred intraoral-scanning and were categorized as Pro-scanning group. Forty-four (45.4 %) students either preferred impression-making (n = 21) or not sure (n = 23) were categorized as Others. More than half of students in both groups felt that intraoral-scanning is easier to identify defect, easier in infection control and require less chairside support. Higher proportion of students in the Pro-scanning group felt that intraoral-scanning requires less chairside support, easier to master as a beginner, more efficient in their hands and they can deal well with the scanner software than that in Others (P < 0.05). Regression shown that students preferred a technique that they perceived is more efficient (P = 0.000).
Conclusions:
While intraoral scanning has perceived advantages, many students still prefer impression making that works more efficient to them.

