ArticleBDJ open2025
The accuracy of edentulous arch impression between intraoral scanner and laboratory scanner: a scoping review.
Article in BDJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Evaluation of Accuracy and Speed Across Three Intraoral Scanners.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Impact of Maneuverability Constraints on Intraoral Scanner Performance.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy Between Digital and Conventional Definitive Impressions of Edentulous Arches: A Clinical Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Undergraduate complete denture education in transition: balancing conventional and digital workflows.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Digital versus conventional impression accuracy for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: AnBioinformation · 2026Article
- Trueness of Intraoral Scanners for Edentulous Mandibular Arches With and Without Landmarks.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
- Comparison of photogrammetric imaging, intraoral scanning and conventional impression accuracy of full-arch dental implant rehabilitation: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to compare the utilization of intraoral scanners and laboratory scanners as an alternative impression method in fully and partially edentulous cases. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis scoping review that implemented the PRISMA-ScR instrument and the methodological approach by Arksey and O'Malley. A comprehensive search was conducted across four databases (PubMed, Scopus, SpringerLink, and ScienceDirect) to retrieve articles published within the last decade. Inclusion criteria were established to identify articles that analyzed the accuracy of both intraoral scanners and laboratory scanners in edentulous cases. Data extraction was performed and results were presented in tables. Subsequently, a thematic analysis was conducted to conclude the accuracy of the intraoral scanners and laboratory scanners in edentulous cases.
resultsA total of 312 articles were retrieved from four databases. After eliminating duplicates and screening based on titles, abstracts, and eligibility criteria, eight articles were selected for detailed analysis of the accuracy of each technology. Most studies investigated fully and partially edentulous arches and demonstrated the utilization of intraoral scanners and laboratory scanners. Some studies additionally analyzed the correlation between various factors influencing digital scans and the condition of edentulous arch. Evaluations of edentulous digital impressions have been conducted, with an assessment of the reliability of intraoral scanners and laboratory scanners.
conclusionIntraoral scanners are extensively utilized and demonstrate considerable promise for edentulous impression procedures. However, morphological differences may impact scanning outcomes.
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.