ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Ethical and regulatory aspects of facial scanning in dentistry: a scoping review.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
objectivesTo provide an overview of facial scanners and scanning applications used in dentistry, focusing on clinical validation, certification status, and to identify ethical and regulatory concerns. MATERIALS AND
methodsA literature search was performed with eligibility criteria that included studies in dentistry that used at least one facial scanner or smartphone scanning application in human facial region in any language. Scanners and applications identified from literature and International Dental Show 2025 were manually noted, and subsequently searched for detailed certification (medical, general, others) and technical information. Furthermore, studies explicitly/implicitly mention/discuss ethical and/or regulatory concerns were included.
resultsNinety-five scanners and 23 smartphone-based applications were identified, of which 90 scanners and all applications were clinically validated. Six scanners (6%, FusionFaceScanner, Carestream CS9600, Planmeca ProFace, Planmeca ProMax 3D Mid, Planmeca ProMax 3D ProFace, Planmeca Viso G7) were Medical Device Regulation-certified, 49% held other certifications, and 51% had unverifiable certification status. Among 19,789 records, six scientific studies discussed ethical concerns, including ethical approval, informed consent, privacy, accuracy, and medical regulatory obligations.
conclusionDespite validation, publicly accessible, verifiable medical-related certification remained limited among the identified scanners, highlighting that ethical and regulatory considerations are underreported in the scientific literature rather than absent from clinical practice. Informed consent, data privacy, accuracy, and medical device compliance were addressed in the included studies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As facial scans provide comprehensive information for esthetic- and facial-driven treatment planning, the findings of this study highlight the need for practitioners and researchers to remain cautious regarding device safety, regulatory compliance, and technological limitations.
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.