ReviewAustralian dental journal2025
Are Conventional Impressions Obsolete? A Narrative Review on the Applicability of Intraoral Scanners.
Review in Australian dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This narrative review examines the clinical indication, practical advantages and limitations of dental digital impressions as compared to conventional impression techniques. Digital impressions are scientifically approved for their high accuracy for single tooth restorations while enhancing workflow efficiency through seamless integration with computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) systems. They improve both patient and clinician experiences by reducing discomfort, shortening treatment times and facilitating more direct communication with dental laboratories. Furthermore, digital records offer long-term archiving benefits and enable direct comparisons with future scans, which can be valuable for monitoring treatment progress. Despite these advantages, digital impressions face challenges in specific clinical scenarios, including movable oral tissues, deep subgingival margins and long-span prostheses. These limitations currently restrict their universal application across all dental indications. Nonetheless, digital impressions are increasingly being adopted in clinical practice across all dental specialties. As technological advancements of intraoral scanners continue, particularly improvements in scanning accuracy and the integration of artificial intelligence, the clinical utility of digital impressions is expected to expand further.
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.