ReviewFrontiers in oral health2026
Evaluation of the patient's perception, reliability and reproducibility, and chairside time with intraoral scanners in adult population-a systematic review.
Review in Frontiers in oral health, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Digital impression techniques have gained popularity in dentistry due to their potential advantages in accuracy, efficiency, and patient comfort. This systematic review aims to evaluate and compare the accuracy, chairside time, and patient perception of conventional vs. digital impressions. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Medline/PubMed, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Inclusion criteria comprised clinical or Results: From 269 initially identified articles, 10 met the inclusion criteria. All studies assessed accuracy; only two evaluated working time and patient comfort. The included studies, published between 2016 and 2024, were cross-sectional observational in design, with sample sizes ranging from 5 to 50 participants. A variety of intraoral scanners were evaluated, including Cerec, Trios, iTero, and Primescan. The QUADAS-2 tool indicated an overall unclear risk of bias in patient selection and mixed concerns regarding applicability. While findings on accuracy were mixed, most studies concluded that both techniques are clinically acceptable, with conventional impressions performing better in full-arch cases. Digital impressions were consistently reported as faster and more comfortable for patients. Limitations: The findings of this review should be interpreted with caution due to methodological heterogeneity, small sample sizes, and the inclusion of predominantly young, fully dentate participants. Conclusion: Intraoral scanners offer advantages in workflow efficiency and patient experience, although conventional impressions remain reliable and widely used. The variability in study designs and outcome measures underscores the need for standardized evaluation protocols in future research. Systematic Review Registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/62RCY.
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.