ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Validation of Digital Impressions' Accuracy Obtained Using Intraoral and Extraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Digital Removable Denture Workflows in Dental Education: A Systematic Review and Curriculum Development Exploration.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026Pooled it
- Reliability of Extraoral Scanners in Capturing 3D Geometry for Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Pooled it
- Verification of extraoral versus intraoral scanning techniques: fit accuracy implications for 3D printed and milled zirconia crowns (An in-vitro study).BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of marginal and internal fit of multi-unit fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional versus digital impressions.Dental research journal · 2026Review
- Surface Conditioning Methods and Their Effects on Micro-Tensile Bond Strength and Micro-Chemical Properties of Glass-Infiltrated Zirconia: An In Vitro Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Review
- Impact of crown and inlay size variations on the accuracy of various digital impression techniques.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Enhancing Intraoral Scanning Accuracy: From the Influencing Factors to a Procedural Guideline.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Retention of 3-D-Printed, Milled, and Conventionally Fabricated Occlusal Splints.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Computed Tomography and a Dental Intraoral Scanner to Generate Three-Dimensional Models of the Beaks of Three Bird Species.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- [Evaluation of the accuracy of three-dimensional data acquisition from liquid- interference surfaces assisted by a scanner head with a compressed airflow system].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2025Article
- The accuracy of edentulous arch impression between intraoral scanner and laboratory scanner: a scoping review.BDJ open · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of the fit quality of monolithic zirconia veneers produced through traditional and digital workflows using silicone replica technique: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Accuracy of Full-Arch Intraoral Scans Versus Conventional Impression: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis and a Proposal to Standardise the Analysis of the Accuracy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Digital impression (intraoral scanners) and factors affecting its accuracy - an insight into knowledge and awareness amongst graduates, and clinical practitioners.BMC oral health · 2024Observational
- Tissue surface adaptation and retention of digital obturator after one year of use.BMC oral health · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAt present, the evidence regarding digital impressions' accuracy recorded by using digital scanners is lacking. This systematic review aimed to evaluate whether the type of scanning (intraoral/extraoral) affects the Accuracy of Digital Impressions.
methodTwo independent reviewers performed a systematic search in the database both electronically and manually (PubMed, Ebsco HOST, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) for articles published from 1 January 2010 to 1 December 2022. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42020188765) and followed the PRISMA statement. The question in focus was as follows: Does the type of scanning (intraoral or extraoral) affect the accuracy of digital impression?
resultsA total of 449 papers were obtained by searching electronically and manually. In total, 15 complete-text papers qualified for assessment based on eligibility criteria. After reading the full-text articles, five studies were excluded. Ten studies were selected for the qualitative analysis. The qualitative data reported that the accuracy of both types of scanners (intraoral and extraoral) lies within the range of clinical acceptability. Nevertheless, the intraoral scanners seem to be more accurate when compared to the extraoral scanners for a partial arch situation.
conclusionsScanning type affects the accuracy of the digital impression. Various factors influence the scanning ability. Intraoral scanners seem to be more accurate compared to extraoral scanners for a partial arch situation. More studies comparing the accuracy of the intraoral scanner and extraoral scanner for a complete arch scan and in an in vivo study setting are needed.
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.