Digital Versus Conventional Impression Techniques in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Efficiency, Comfort and Patient Preference

Background: Conventional alginate impressions are widely used in paediatric dentistry but present several limitations. Digital intraoral scanning has emerged as a promising alternative, potentially improving patient experience and clinical efficiency. Aim: Evaluate whether digital intraoral impressions differ from conventional alginate impressions in efficiency, comfort and acceptance among paediatric patients. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA 2020. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and SIGLE were searched to February 2025. Eligible studies enrolled children receiving both digital and conventional full-arch impressions. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane RoB-1, and data pooled using random-effects models. Results: Seven studies with 337 children were included. Digital impressions were faster than conventional (mean difference 165.48 s; 95% CI 157.74–173.21; p < 0.00001). Patient-reported outcomes also favoured digital scanning: lower pain (MD 13.03 mm), greater comfort (MD −34.02 mm) and less breathing difficulty (MD 32.51 mm) and gag reflex (MD 38.07 mm), all p < 0.00001. Children were over four times likelier to prefer digital scanning (RR 4.28; 95% CI 1.47–12.44; p = 0.008). Heterogeneity was high but directionally consistent. Conclusions: Digital intraoral scanning is faster, more comfortable and better accepted than conventional impressions, supporting wider use in paediatric dentistry. Trial Registration: Open Science Framework Registration number: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8EFHS.