Systematic Review of Intraoral Scanner Accuracy and Patient Perception

Olga Diana Ramos-Morro's systematic review synthesizes evidence from 10 clinical studies published between 2016 and 2024. The review compares conventional and digital dental impression techniques, focusing on accuracy, chairside time, and patient comfort.

Use Cases

• Analyze reported accuracy outcomes across studies to compare conventional versus digital impression techniques.
• Extract data on chairside time from the two studies that evaluated working time for efficiency benchmarking.
• Review patient comfort and perception findings to assess subjective advantages of intraoral scanners.
• Identify the variety of intraoral scanner models evaluated, such as Cerec, Trios, iTero, and Primescan.

Strengths

• Includes 10 clinical studies identified through a systematic search of four major databases.
• Covers a defined publication time range from 2016 to 2024.
• Study quality was formally assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.

Limitations

• The review is based on a small number of included studies, with only 10 meeting the inclusion criteria.
• Methodological heterogeneity and small sample sizes (5 to 50 participants) in the original studies limit generalizability.
• Findings have an unclear risk of bias in patient selection according to the QUADAS-2 assessment.

Provenance

Source

Olga Diana Ramos-Morro via figshare.

Collection Method

Systematic review of literature from Medline/PubMed, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Scopus.

Time Range

Studies published between 2016 and 2024.

Freshness

Last updated March 2026.

Geography

null