ReviewOdontology2026
The role of intraoral scanners and 3D printing in forensic odontology: a systematic review.
Review in Odontology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Forensic odontology has evolved significantly with the advent of digital technologies. Intraoral scanners (IOS) and 3D printing offer promising, non-invasive tools for documentation, analysis, and identification in forensic scenarios. This systematic review aims to evaluate the current applications, accuracy, and limitations of intraoral scanners and 3D printing in forensic odontology. A systematic search was conducted in databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for articles published between January 2000 and March 2025. Studies involving the use of IOS or 3D printing in forensic dental identification, age estimation, bite mark analysis, or postmortem documentation were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed using PRISMA guidelines and the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. A total of 8 studies met the inclusion criteria. Intraoral scanners demonstrated high accuracy in capturing antemortem dental data and were effective in replicating dental records for comparative identification. 3D-printed dental models showed strong utility in court-admissible evidence presentation, bite mark comparison, and stimulation of trauma cases. Combined use of IOS and 3D printing improved workflow efficiency and preserved fragile post-mortem findings. However, limitations included cost, scanning difficulties in decomposed tissues, and lack of standardized forensic protocols. Intraoral scanners and 3D printing are valuable adjuncts in forensic odontology, enhancing the precision, reproducibility, and visualization of dental evidence. While their potential is considerable, further validation studies and standard operating procedures are essential for broader forensic acceptance and legal integration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42624974What 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.