ReviewCureus2025
Accuracy and Clinical Performance of Intraoral Scanners Compared to Conventional and Extraoral Impressions: An Umbrella Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Marginal adaptation of 3D-printed crowns: influence of preparation geometry and digitization workflow.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital impression technologies have transformed modern dental workflows, with intraoral scanners (IOS) emerging as a prominent alternative to conventional elastomeric impressions and extraoral scanning systems. This umbrella review aims to comprehensively synthesize evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and umbrella reviews evaluating the accuracy, efficiency, and clinical applicability of IOS across various prosthodontic, implant, and orthodontic applications. A total of 10 reviews published between 2020 and 2024 were included, encompassing over 30 IOS models and a wide spectrum of clinical settings. Trueness and precision were the most frequently evaluated outcomes, with TRIOS 3 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) and Primescan (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) consistently ranking highest in complete-arch accuracy. Compared to traditional impressions, IOS generally reduced procedural time and enhanced patient comfort, although accuracy in partially edentulous and edentulous arches remained a limiting factor. Meta-analytical findings supported the superior performance of certain IOS platforms over others and affirmed the time-saving benefits of digital scanning. However, most reviews relied heavily on in-vitro studies, and few conducted robust risk of bias assessments or used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assessing certainty of evidence. Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) analysis revealed only two reviews met high-quality methodological standards, while others showed moderate to critically low ratings. The findings underscore the clinical advantages of IOS while highlighting the need for standardized protocols and higher-quality evidence in complex restorative scenarios.
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.