Evidence for use of intraoral scanners under clinical conditions for obtaining full-arch digital impressions is insufficient.

Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase. Relevant papers were also searched from the reference lists of selected studies. A web search of current manufacturers of intraoral scanners.Study selectionStudies with full-arch digital impressions recorded intraorally that tested any of the following outcomes; validity, repeatability, reproducibility, time efficiency. Patient acceptance of digital impressions were considered for the review.Data extraction and synthesisInitially, only titles of the papers identified from the databases were screened, then further screening of the abstracts of the selected titles was carried out. Then finally, full text articles of the selected abstracts were read and only relevant articles were included in the review. Two examiners assessed the quality of the chosen articles using the QUADAS checklist. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion between the two examiners.ResultsOnly eight studies were found that carried out full-arch intraoral scanning. Four studies reported on validity, repeatability and reproducibility of digital measurements. These studies were included in the qualitative assessment. Two intraoral scanners were tested, Lava COS and iTero. In assessing scanning times and patient perception, six and four studies were included, respectively. A decrease in the scanning time was noted as the operator gained experience.ConclusionsThe literature lacks sufficient evidence to comment on the use of intraoral scanners under clinical conditions. Further studies are needed to properly assess the reliability, accuracy, reproducibility and scanning times of intraoral scans.