# Validated Questionnaire on Intraoral Scanner Effectiveness in Paediatric Patients
## 3 Results  
A sample of at least 42 respondents was required for doubling the frequency of knowledge of intraoral scanner use, specifying an alpha level (\(\alpha\)) = 0.05 and a beta (\(\beta\)) = 0.10 (study power = 90%).  
Test-retest reliability, which was assessed in 49 of the 98 subjects enrolled, refers to the extent to which individuals' responses to questionnaire items remain relatively consistent after repeated administration of the same questionnaire (Table 2). The test-retest reliability was assessed through the percentage of agreement of the [PERSON]'s kappa index for the nominal variables and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) (two-way mixed-effect; absolute agreement) for the scores indicated in the first and at the second visit (4 weeks after the first visit); values below 0.5, between 0.5 and 0.75, between 0.75 and 0.9 and above 0.90 are indicative of poor, moderate, good and excellent reliability, respectively. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) with a two-way mixed-effects model were used  
Figure 1: Validated questionnaire on intraoral scanner effectiveness.  
to analyze the reliability for the scores indicated in the first and at second visit, according to [PERSON] [15]. Based on the 95% confident interval of the ICC estimate, values less than 0.5, between 0.5 and 0.75, between 0.75 and 0.9 and greater than 0.90 are indicative of poor, moderate, good and excellent reliability, respectively. The processing was carried out using the STATA/BE 17.0 statistical package and the level of statistical significance was set at \(p\) < 0.05; a _p_-value < 0.05 was chosen because conventionally this level of significance is chosen (Table 3).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c} \hline \hline
**Children’s Age, Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **9 \(\pm\) 2.01** \\ \hline Child sex, n (\%) & \\ Male & 54 (55.10) \\ Female & 44 (44.90) \\ \hline Parent, n (\%) & \\ Father & 38 (38.78) \\ Mother & 60 (61.22) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Demographic characteristics of respondents (N = 98).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c} \hline \hline PARENT & **N = 98** \\ \hline Q1. Have you ever seen the dentist use the intraoral scanner?, n (\%) & \\ No & 51 (52.04) \\ Yes & 47 (47.96) \\ \hline Q2. Do you think the scanner is a valid tool for patient–doctor communication?, mean \(\pm\) SD & 8.70 \(\pm\) 0.83 \\ \hline Q3. Do you think this method is preferable to classic impressions?, n (\%) & 2 (2.04) \\ No & 96 (97.96) \\ \hline Q4. How much has your child’s dental health awareness improved after using this tool? & 8.49 \(\pm\) 1.15 \\ mean \(\pm\) SD & \\ \hline Q5. Do you think the scanner is a valid tool for approaching the child on the first visit? & 8.53 \(\pm\) 1.05 \\ mean \(\pm\) SD & \\ \hline Q6. Do you believe that this tool can change the relationship between the child and the & \\ dentist? n (\%) & 4 (4.08) \\ No & 94 (95.92) \\ Yes & \\ \hline Q7. Do you notice tiredness or discomfort in your child while using the scanner? n (\%) & \\ No & 98 (100.00) \\ Yes & 0 (0.00) \\ \hline Q8. Has the child ever expressed the desire to interrupt the visit? If the answer is yes, do & \\ you think it is due to the use of the scanner? n (\%) & \\ No & 97 (98.98) \\ Yes & 1 (1.02) \\ \hline Q9. How did viewing a digital reconstruction of your child’s oral cavity help you & 8.45 \(\pm\) 1.15 \\ understand the indications provided by the dentist? mean \(\pm\) SD & 8.35 \(\pm\) 0.95 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Frequency distribution and mean scores of responses to the questionnaire.