SynthesisJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2025
Color Comparison Between Intraoral Scanner and Spectrophotometer Shade Matching: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Repeatability and Inter-Method Agreement of VITA Easyshade Advance 4.0 and Rayplicker Cobra for Tooth Shade Determination: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Efficacy of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Appliances in the Selection of Tooth Shade: Protocol for an Observational Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparative evaluation of intraoral scanners and a spectrophotometer for percent correct shade identification in clinical dentistry.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
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
objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis compared the accuracy of intraoral scanners and spectrophotometers in determining tooth shade. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn electronic search of five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL) was conducted on October 19, 2023. A total of 163 studies were identified from the databases, of which 23 articles were eligible for inclusion. In vivo and in vitro quasi-experimental studies were included. After data extraction, a quantitative analysis was performed to determine the accuracy of the intraoral scanner in subgroups using four outcomes: trueness and precision with different measurement locations. A random-effects model was used to pool effect sizes. The pooled proportion with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used for the effect size measure.
resultsEleven articles were included in the meta-analysis. Trueness with the intraoral scanner was between 0.28 (CI: 0.09-0.60) and 0.38 (CI: 0.24-0.53). Repeatability was between 0.81 (CI: 0.64-0.91) and 0.85 (CI: 0.74-0.92). Trueness showed low, and precision had moderate certainty of evidence.
conclusionThe trueness of shade matching with intraoral scanners is low compared to spectrophotometers, although the precision is considered high and is similar to spectrophotometers. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Shade determination with intraoral scanners is not recommended.
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.