Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 3, 2025
Measuring the Complete-arch Distortion of an Optical Dental Impression
Published on: May 30, 2019
Patient-reported experiences and preferences with intraoral scanners: a systematic review
Isidora Christopoulou1, Eleftherios G Kaklamanos2, Miltiadis A Makrygiannakis1
1Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Background:
Intraoral scanners have become an increasingly popular alternative to conventional impression methods. Although their accuracy and validity have been examined thoroughly, patient-reported information including experiences, preferences, and satisfaction has not yet been investigated in a systematic way.
Objective:
The objective of this systematic review is to investigate the available data and appraise the evidence on patient-reported experiences and preferences following impression taking with intraoral scanners.
Search Methods:
Unrestricted search of seven databases (Pubmed, CENTRAL, Cochrane reviews, Scopus, Web of Science, Clinical Trials, and ProQuest) and grey literature were conducted until October 2020. Detailed search strategies were developed for each database.
Selection Criteria:
Studies involving individuals of any gender or age, subjected to full arch impression taking with conventional and intraoral scanning methods were eligible for inclusion.
Data Collection And Analysis:
Following the retrieval and selection of the studies, data extraction was performed. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools.
Results:
From the initially identified records, nine studies [eight crossover (two of them randomized) and one parallel group] were eventually included in the present systematic review. Randomized studies were shown, overall, to have some concerns regarding bias, whereas the non-randomized studies were found to be at serious risk, mainly because of bias due to confounding. All studies demonstrated some benefit in favour of intraoral scanning compared with conventional techniques. More positive feelings were generally observed with the intraoral scanners regarding smell, taste, sound, vibration, nausea, and queasiness. Overall, comfort assessment mostly favoured digital methods. No differences were found concerning the level of anxiety between the two methods. Among the included studies, time perception was a parameter leading to contradictory results.
Limitations:
These emerge due to the nature and characteristics of the information retrieved from the included studies. The validation of the instruments to capture patient-reported outcomes needs to be further elaborated.
Conclusions:
Intraoral scanners seem to be a promising new asset in the orthodontic office from the perspective of individuals' experiences and preferences. Nevertheless, to investigate patient-reported outcomes correctly, further high-quality studies are required in the future.
Registration:
Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ayug2/).
