Table 2 Awareness about digital impression taking before and after training (7-point Likert scale)

Accuracy

More accurate than rubber impression taking

4.29 (1.45)

4.82 (1.24)

0.024*

5.06 (1.09)

5.59 (1.23)

0.132

More accurate than alginate impression taking

4.77 (1.60)

5.35 (1.62)

0.096

5.47 (1.13)

6.06 (1.09)

0.086

Convenience

More efficient management of impression model

5.88 (1.69)

6.29 (1.49)

0.130

6.41 (0.80)

6.59 (0.62)

0.484

Efficiency

Possibility of saving time compared to rubber impressions

5.24 (1.60)

4.88 (1.57)

0.455

4.65 (1.54)

4.82 (1.63)

0.661

Possibility of saving time compared to alginate impressions

4.29 (2.14)

4.06 (2.05)

0.702

4.29 (1.72)

4.06 (1.78)

0.632

Influence on simplification of the entire treatment process

5.24 (1.03)

5.06 (1.56)

0.627

5.18 (1.01)

5.47 (1.06)

0.311

Usefulness in attracting patient’s attention.

5.82 (1.43)

6.12 (0.78)

0.385

5.47 (1.18)

6.00 (0.94)

0.083

Clinical usefulness

Influence on increasing patient’s trust.

5.35 (1.58)

5.88 (0.78)

0.120

5.59 (1.06)

5.77 (0.90)

0.616

Influence on promoting the dental clinic.

5.35 (1.50)

5.88 (0.99)

0.034*

5.59 (1.06)

6.00 (0.87)

0.069

Skill acquisition

Ease of training in a short time

4.47 (1.28)

4.06 (1.30)

0.370

4.65 (1.46)

4.65 (1.73)

1.000

Effect of proficiency in using digital impression techniques on the accuracy

6.24 (0.83)

6.59 (0.71)

0.251

6.18 (0.88)

6.18 (0.72)

1.000

5.18 (1.33)

5.41 (1.27)

0.299

5.65 (1.00)

5.71 (0.85)

0.817

4.82 (1.28)

5.18 (1.29)

0.370

5.47 (0.80)

5.53 (1.23)

0.848

5.59 (1.06)

5.29 (0.92)

0.206

5.65 (0.79)

5.71 (1.11)

0.848