Table 3.

Patient-reported outcome measures evaluated in included studies

Tooth supported	Gjelvold et al. 2016	VAS (0–100)	48	24 IOS/24 CI	Patient comfort	Complete-arch scan	IOS	CI = 44.86 ± 27.13/IOS = 6.50 ± 5.87 (0 = no discomfort, 100 = discomfort
	Benic et al. 2016	VAS (0–100)	10	30 IOS/10 CI	Patient comfort	Quadrant scan	IOS = CI	No difference in patient comfort
	Sakornwimon and Leevailoj 2017	VAS (0–10)	16	8 IOS/8 CI	Taste/smell Gag reflex Time involved	Quadrant scan	IOS	Taste/smell CI = 6.8 ± 1.8/IOS = 8.4 ± 1.5 (p = 0.007); gag reflex CI = 6.3 ± 2.7/IOS = 8.6 ±1.5 (p = 0.003); time involved CI = 6.9 ± 1.0/IOS = 7.9 ± 1.4 (p = 0.021)
	Haddadi et al. 2018	VAS (0–100)	19	19 IOS/19 CI	Patient comfort	Quadrant scan	IOS	CI = 59.8/IOS = 6.2
	Sailer et al. 2019	VAS (0–100)	10	30 IOS/10 CI	Patient comfort	Complete-arch scan	IOS	IOS: Lava = 35 ± 27; iTero = 73 ± 17; CEREC = 67 ±13; CI = 15 ± 12; uncomfortable = 0, comfortable = 100
Implant supported	Wismeijer et al. 2014	Questionnaire with category scale (1–10)	30	30 IOS/30 CI	Treatment time Taste Nausea sensation Patient comfort	Quadrant scan	IOS	IOS overall experience significantly more favorable than CI (p =.026); negative correlations found between patient satisfaction and time involved for digital impression technique
	Schepke et al. 2015	VAS (0–100)	48	48 IOS/48 CI	Anxiety and patient comfort	Complete-arch scan	IOS	More discomfort during the analog impression p < 0.001; shortness of breath, more feelings of helplessness, and more afraid of having to repeat an analog procedure
	Joda and Bragger 2016	VAS (0–100)	20	20 IOS/20 CI	Treatment time/convenience/anxiety/taste/nausea sensation/pain	Quadrant scan	IOS	IOS: mean convenience = 78.8% + 13.5%; median (83.0) [p < 0.0001], mean speed 72.5% + 17.8%; median (76.0) [p < 0.0001], and mean overall preference 77.3% + 15.2%; median (79.0) (p < 0.0001)
	Guo et al. 2019	VAS (0–100)	20	40 IOS/20 CI	Patient comfort	Complete-arch scan	IOS	Among the 20 patients, 17 showed a preference for the immediate IOS (85%), and 3 expressed indifference regarding the impression methods.; “very satisfied = 0” to “not satisfied at all = 100”).
	Delize et al. 2019	VAS	31	31 IOS/31 CI	Comfort/anxiety/taste/nausea sensation/pain/time	Quadrant scan	IOS	The global VAS score was significantly better for IOS (p = 0.0098). No difference was found for pain (p = 0.99) and treatment duration (p = 0.71). However, the comfort (p = 0.0087), anxiety (p = 0.031), and taste (p = 0.014) domain results were significantly better with the IOS compared to the CI. A trend was observed for nausea (p = 0.074).
	Lee et al. 2021	VAS (0–100)	30	30 IOS/30 CI	Patient comfort	Quadrant scan	IOS	89% preferred digital impression; VAS = 79.5 + 21.6 for digital and 39.9 + 31.7 for conventional

Legend: VAS, visual analog scale; IOS, intraoral scanning; CI, conventional impression; PROMs, patient-reported outcome measures