Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2025 Sep 25;17(9):e93202.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.93202. eCollection 2025 Sep.

Accuracy and Clinical Performance of Intraoral Scanners Compared to Conventional and Extraoral Impressions: An Umbrella Review

Rajeev Singh  1 , Gaurang Mistry  1 , Ashwini Kini  1 , Rasha Ansari  1 , Vibha Kailaje  1 , Shresth Kapoor  1
Affiliations
Review

Accuracy and Clinical Performance of Intraoral Scanners Compared to Conventional and Extraoral Impressions: An Umbrella Review

Rajeev Singh et al. Cureus. .

Abstract

Digital impression technologies have transformed modern dental workflows, with intraoral scanners (IOS) emerging as a prominent alternative to conventional elastomeric impressions and extraoral scanning systems. This umbrella review aims to comprehensively synthesize evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and umbrella reviews evaluating the accuracy, efficiency, and clinical applicability of IOS across various prosthodontic, implant, and orthodontic applications. A total of 10 reviews published between 2020 and 2024 were included, encompassing over 30 IOS models and a wide spectrum of clinical settings. Trueness and precision were the most frequently evaluated outcomes, with TRIOS 3 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) and Primescan (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) consistently ranking highest in complete-arch accuracy. Compared to traditional impressions, IOS generally reduced procedural time and enhanced patient comfort, although accuracy in partially edentulous and edentulous arches remained a limiting factor. Meta-analytical findings supported the superior performance of certain IOS platforms over others and affirmed the time-saving benefits of digital scanning. However, most reviews relied heavily on in-vitro studies, and few conducted robust risk of bias assessments or used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assessing certainty of evidence. Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) analysis revealed only two reviews met high-quality methodological standards, while others showed moderate to critically low ratings. The findings underscore the clinical advantages of IOS while highlighting the need for standardized protocols and higher-quality evidence in complex restorative scenarios.

Keywords: accuracy; digital impressions; extraoral scanners; intraoral scanners; prosthodontics; systematic review; umbrella review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram indicating the selection process of the articles in the present systematic review
PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. The modern and digital transformation of oral health care: a mini review. Alauddin MS, Baharuddin AS, Mohd Ghazali MI. Healthcare (Basel) 2021;9 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. Ting-Shu S, Jian S. J Prosthodont. 2015;24:313–321. - PubMed
    1. Michalakis K, Hajjar L, Del Castillo L, Hirayama H. Digital Dentistry: An Overview and Future Prospects. Cham: Springer; 2024. Digital impressions; pp. 25–46.
    1. Digital intraoral impression methods: an update on accuracy. Robles-Medina M, Romeo-Rubio M, Salido MP, Pradíes G. Curr Oral Health Rep. 2020;7:361–375.
    1. An overview of three-dimensional imaging devices in dentistry. Hou X, Xu X, Zhao M, et al. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2022;34:1179–1196. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources