Evaluation of the patient's perception, reliability and reproducibility, and chairside time with intraoral scanners in adult population a systematic review

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 impress...

ver descrição completa

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autores: Mareque-Ameijeiras, Susana, Giovannini, Giovanni, Paz-Cortés, Marta Macarena, Serrano-Velasco, Diego, Aragoneses, Juan Manuel, Martín-Vacas, Andrea, Ramos-Morro, Olga Diana|||/items/d12af1f1-4a52-4133-80f4-fdf003e0cca8
Formato: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2026
País:España
Recursos:Universidad Alfonso X el Sabio
Repositorio:Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Alfonso X el Sabio
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:dnet:repositorio_::d57f1959e4716c9cbca24281c1c5e549
Acesso em linha:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12080/60525
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palavra-chave:Escáneres intraorales
Población adulta
id ES_3fdbaa5ce4906e8d720c66980f5b9f28
oai_identifier_str oai:dnet:repositorio_::d57f1959e4716c9cbca24281c1c5e549
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Evaluation of the patient's perception, reliability and reproducibility, and chairside time with intraoral scanners in adult population a systematic reviewMareque-Ameijeiras, SusanaGiovannini, GiovanniPaz-Cortés, Marta MacarenaSerrano-Velasco, DiegoAragoneses, Juan ManuelMartín-Vacas, AndreaRamos-Morro, Olga Diana|||/items/d12af1f1-4a52-4133-80f4-fdf003e0cca8Escáneres intraoralesPoblación adultaIntroduction: 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 in vivo studies comparing conventional and digital impression techniques in terms of accuracy, working time, and/or patient comfort. Reviews, meta-analyses, editorials, and studies involving fully edentulous patients or edentulous spans exceeding two teeth were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS−2 tool, and intra-operator agreement was evaluated using the Cohen’s Kappa statistic. 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.FrontiersUAX -Campus MadridUAX Archive20262026-01-0120262026-01-01journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12080/60525reponame:Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Alfonso X el Sabioinstname:Universidad Alfonso X el SabioInglésengopen accesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Attribution 4.0 Internationalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:dnet:repositorio_::d57f1959e4716c9cbca24281c1c5e5492026-05-28T12:40:21Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Evaluation of the patient's perception, reliability and reproducibility, and chairside time with intraoral scanners in adult population a systematic review
title Evaluation of the patient's perception, reliability and reproducibility, and chairside time with intraoral scanners in adult population a systematic review
spellingShingle Evaluation of the patient's perception, reliability and reproducibility, and chairside time with intraoral scanners in adult population a systematic review
Mareque-Ameijeiras, Susana
Escáneres intraorales
Población adulta
title_short Evaluation of the patient's perception, reliability and reproducibility, and chairside time with intraoral scanners in adult population a systematic review
title_full Evaluation of the patient's perception, reliability and reproducibility, and chairside time with intraoral scanners in adult population a systematic review
title_fullStr Evaluation of the patient's perception, reliability and reproducibility, and chairside time with intraoral scanners in adult population a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the patient's perception, reliability and reproducibility, and chairside time with intraoral scanners in adult population a systematic review
title_sort Evaluation of the patient's perception, reliability and reproducibility, and chairside time with intraoral scanners in adult population a systematic review
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Mareque-Ameijeiras, Susana
Giovannini, Giovanni
Paz-Cortés, Marta Macarena
Serrano-Velasco, Diego
Aragoneses, Juan Manuel
Martín-Vacas, Andrea
Ramos-Morro, Olga Diana|||/items/d12af1f1-4a52-4133-80f4-fdf003e0cca8
author Mareque-Ameijeiras, Susana
author_facet Mareque-Ameijeiras, Susana
Giovannini, Giovanni
Paz-Cortés, Marta Macarena
Serrano-Velasco, Diego
Aragoneses, Juan Manuel
Martín-Vacas, Andrea
Ramos-Morro, Olga Diana|||/items/d12af1f1-4a52-4133-80f4-fdf003e0cca8
author_role author
author2 Giovannini, Giovanni
Paz-Cortés, Marta Macarena
Serrano-Velasco, Diego
Aragoneses, Juan Manuel
Martín-Vacas, Andrea
Ramos-Morro, Olga Diana|||/items/d12af1f1-4a52-4133-80f4-fdf003e0cca8
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv UAX -Campus Madrid
UAX Archive
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Escáneres intraorales
Población adulta
topic Escáneres intraorales
Población adulta
description 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 in vivo studies comparing conventional and digital impression techniques in terms of accuracy, working time, and/or patient comfort. Reviews, meta-analyses, editorials, and studies involving fully edentulous patients or edentulous spans exceeding two teeth were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS−2 tool, and intra-operator agreement was evaluated using the Cohen’s Kappa statistic. 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.
publishDate 2026
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2026
2026-01-01
2026
2026-01-01
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv journal article
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
dc.type.openaire.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12080/60525
url https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12080/60525
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
eng
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv open access
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Attribution 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
dc.rights.openaire.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv open access
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Attribution 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Frontiers
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Frontiers
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Alfonso X el Sabio
instname:Universidad Alfonso X el Sabio
instname_str Universidad Alfonso X el Sabio
reponame_str Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Alfonso X el Sabio
collection Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Alfonso X el Sabio
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869406689337278464
score 15,812429

Registos relacionados