ArticleInternational dental journal2023
User Experience of Intraoral Scanners in Dentistry: Transnational Questionnaire Study.
Article in International dental journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Student Perceptions of Digital Scanning Techniques Compared to Traditional Alginate Impressions.Journal of dental education · 2026Article
- Review
- Digital technology adoption in dentistry: a comparative analysis of utilization, motivations, and barriers among dentists in Sibiu County, Romania.Journal of medicine and life · 2026Article
- Adoption and Barriers to CAD/CAM Technology Among Dentists in the Dominican Republic: A Cross-Sectional Study.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Impact of scanning errors on the trueness of digital implant impressions.International journal of implant dentistry · 2026Article
- Are Conventional Impressions Obsolete? A Narrative Review on the Applicability of Intraoral Scanners.Australian dental journal · 2025Review
- Exploring Current Trends, Challenges and Future Directions of Intraoral Digital Impression in the Management of Patients with Cleft Lip and/or Palate: A Narrative Literature Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Enhancing Intraoral Scanning Accuracy: From the Influencing Factors to a Procedural Guideline.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Trueness comparison of various intraoral scanners and hybrid workflow for ceramic restoration.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2025Article
- Intraoral Scanners in Orthodontics: Utilization, Awareness, and Educational Implications Among Specialists in the Kurdistan Region, Iraq - A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- The Comparison of Accuracy of Post Space Digital Impressions Made by Three Different Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Recent Advances in Intraoral Scanners.Journal of dental research · 2024Review
- Digital impression (intraoral scanners) and factors affecting its accuracy - an insight into knowledge and awareness amongst graduates, and clinical practitioners.BMC oral health · 2024Observational
- Direct vs. Indirect Digital Implant Impressions: A Time and Cost Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntraoral scanners (IOS) are continuing to gain popularity in clinical dentistry, replacing the traditional impression-taking and related technology. Despite their increasing importance, there are few data on the utility and usage of IOS amongst dentists. This study investigates the user experience of IOS technology as well as the perceived quality of a variety of IOS used by dental clinicians worldwide.
methodsAn online survey of 1072 dentists was conducted to elicit data on the number of individual IOS used, their accessibility, the maintenance fees, and the programmes used. The first part of the questionnaire included demographic data and related questions, whilst the second part focussed on the specific IOS used by the respondents and the satisfaction with their scanners.
resultsWe surveyed 1072 respondents from 109 different countries. More than three-quarters of the survey cohort (78.8%) use IOS in their daily work, whilst 21.17% do not. The average number of scanners owned by the respondents was 1.5 (±0.9), and in total, the cohort used 36 different types of IOS. More than one-third (38.6%) of the respondents used computer-aided design (CAD) software as well. As for the frequency of IOS usage, 51.5% used the system on a daily basis, 28.2% did so 2 to 3 times a week, and 10.0% did so once a week. Overall, the top 3 IOS used by the cohort were Medit i700 followed by wireless Medit i700 and Dentsply Sirona Primescan.
conclusionsThis study describes, for the first time, the IOS user experience in an international cohort. More than 75% of the respondents used IOS on a daily basis in their practice, whilst Medit and Dentsply Sirona brands were the most popular scanners amongst the group. It appears that digital impression-taking technology is universal, and digital workflow in dentistry will continue to grow.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.