IADR Abstract Archives
Students’ Perceptions and Preferences for Intraoral Scanning and Impression Taking
Objectives: Students’ perceptions and preferences for new technologies should be considered to determine how to apply and integrate such technologies into new curriculum. The objective of this survey was to investigate the students’ perceptions and preferences for intraoral-scanning and impression-taking.
Methods: Final-year undergraduate dental students from two cohorts were invited to complete an online questionnaire related to the perceptions and preferences of intraoral-scanning/impression-taking via Google Forms (IRB number: UW 20-514). Wilcoxon signed rank test, McNemar test and binary logistic regression were performed at α=0.05.
Results: Ninety-seven students participated in this study with response rate of 98.0%. Eighty-one students (83.5%) have tried intraoral-scanning on peers. Fifty-three (54.6%) students preferred intraoral-scanning and based on response were categorized as Pro-scanning. Forty-four (45.4%) students either preferred impression-taking (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 (P>0.05) and easier in disinfection (P>0.05). Less than one-fifth of students in both groups felt that scanning takes more time (P>0.05). Most of the students (>80%) in both groups did not feel that more dental surgery assistant support is required for intraoral-scanning. While Pro-scanning group has 41 (77.4%) students felt that scanning is more efficient, only 10 students (22.7%) in the Others group have the same feeling (P=0.000). More Pro-scanning students (77.4%) felt that intraoral-scanning is easier to master as a beginner than that in Others group (56.8%) (P=0.03). More Pro-scanning group students (n=36, 67.9%) found that they can dealt well with operating the software program of the intraoral scanner than Others students (n=19, 43.2%) (P=0.01). Regression showed that students preferred a technique that is more efficient to them (P=0.000).
Conclusions: While intraoral-scanning has many perceived advantages, many students still prefer impression-taking.
Methods: Final-year undergraduate dental students from two cohorts were invited to complete an online questionnaire related to the perceptions and preferences of intraoral-scanning/impression-taking via Google Forms (IRB number: UW 20-514). Wilcoxon signed rank test, McNemar test and binary logistic regression were performed at α=0.05.
Results: Ninety-seven students participated in this study with response rate of 98.0%. Eighty-one students (83.5%) have tried intraoral-scanning on peers. Fifty-three (54.6%) students preferred intraoral-scanning and based on response were categorized as Pro-scanning. Forty-four (45.4%) students either preferred impression-taking (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 (P>0.05) and easier in disinfection (P>0.05). Less than one-fifth of students in both groups felt that scanning takes more time (P>0.05). Most of the students (>80%) in both groups did not feel that more dental surgery assistant support is required for intraoral-scanning. While Pro-scanning group has 41 (77.4%) students felt that scanning is more efficient, only 10 students (22.7%) in the Others group have the same feeling (P=0.000). More Pro-scanning students (77.4%) felt that intraoral-scanning is easier to master as a beginner than that in Others group (56.8%) (P=0.03). More Pro-scanning group students (n=36, 67.9%) found that they can dealt well with operating the software program of the intraoral scanner than Others students (n=19, 43.2%) (P=0.01). Regression showed that students preferred a technique that is more efficient to them (P=0.000).
Conclusions: While intraoral-scanning has many perceived advantages, many students still prefer impression-taking.