Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 10, 2026
Combining Augmented Reality and 3D Printing to Display Patient Models on a Smartphone
Published on: January 2, 2020
Augmented and mixed reality in implant dentistry: A scoping review exploring clinician- and patient-reported outcomes
Aim:
This scoping review aims to explore current trends in the scientific literature on clinician- and patient-reported outcomes as well as the feasibility of augmented reality (AR) and mixed reality (MR) technologies in implant-related dentistry and prosthodontics. Future perspectives are also assessed.
Materials And Methods:
Following the Joanna Briggs Institute Methods Manual for Scoping Reviews, the research question was formulated using the 'Population' (P), 'Concept' (Cpt), and 'Context' (Cxt) framework. Any type of clinician-, patient-, or investigator-reported outcome was designated as P, the use of AR or MR in clinical settings was set as Cpt, and implant-related dentistry and prosthodontics served as Cxt. A comprehensive electronic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL for articles published up to April 16, 2025. Two authors independently performed the screening, full-text analysis, and data extraction. Descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis were used to analyze the obtained data.
Results:
The electronic search identified 1,258 titles after removing duplicates. Eight studies involving 98 participants were included. Of these, three articles focused on overall digital workflows, three manuscripts on implant placement, one study on treatment planning, and the remaining one on intraoral scanning. AR was used in four studies, MR devices were analyzed in three articles, and one trial used both technologies. Clinician-reported outcome measures were assessed in six studies, most commonly focusing on accuracy and time-efficiency. Patient-reported outcome measures were evaluated in one randomized controlled trial.
Conclusion:
This scoping review highlights the growing interest in AR and MR technologies in implant dentistry. More studies have focused on clinician-reported outcomes, particularly related to the accuracy of implant placement and workflow integration. However, patient-reported outcomes remain underexplored. Preliminary findings suggest that AR and MR technologies are feasible and may increase workflow efficiency. Further research is needed to fully evaluate the impact of AR and MR technologies across the entire digital workflow in implant dentistry and to better understand benefits from both clinical and patient perspectives.
