Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature

Abstract

BackgroundIntraoral scanners (IOS) are devices for capturing direct optical impressions in dentistry. The purpose of this narrative review on the use of IOS was to: (1) identify the advantages/disadvantages of using optical impressions compared to conventional impressions; (2) investigate if optical impressions are as accurate as conventional impressions; (3) evaluate the differences between the IOS currently available commercially; (4) determine the current clinical applications/limitations in the use of IOS.MethodsElectronic database searches were performed using specific keywords and MeSH terms. The searches were confined to full-text articles written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals between January 2007 and June 2017.ResultsOne hundred thirty-two studies were included in the present review; among them, 20 were previous literature reviews, 78 were in vivo clinical studies (6 randomized controlled/crossover trials, 31 controlled/comparative studies; 24 cohort studies/case series; 17 case reports) and 34 were in vitro comparative studies.ConclusionsOptical impressions reduce patient discomfort; IOS are time-efficient and simplify clinical procedures for the dentist, eliminating plaster models and allowing better communication with the dental technician and with patients; however, with IOS, it can be difficult to detect deep margin lines in prepared teeth and/or in case of bleeding, there is a learning curve, and there are purchasing and managing costs. The current IOS are sufficiently accurate for capturing impressions for fabricating a whole series of prosthetic restorations (inlays/onlays, copings and frameworks, single crowns and fixed partial dentures) on both natural teeth and implants; in addition, they can be used for smile design, and to fabricate posts and cores, removable partial prostheses and obturators. The literature to date does not support the use of IOS in long-span restorations with natural teeth or implants. Finally, IOS can be integrated in implant dentistry for guided surgery and in orthodontics for fabricating aligners and custom-made devices.

Accuracy of Computer-Assisted Template-Based Implant Placement Using Two Different Surgical Templates Designed with or without Metallic Sleeves: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…Modern digital technology could help to improve patients’ acceptance and clinical success. In the last years, the use of digital intraoral optical scanner (IOS) has been shown to be a viable option for the rehabilitation of partial edentulous patients, even when associated to computer-guided template-assisted implant placement [1,2]. The clinician and the patient can benefit in terms of shorter treatment time if intraoral digital impression is used [2].…”

Accuracy of digital impressions for implant‐supported complete‐arch prosthesis, using an auxiliary geometry part—An in vitro study

“…Several studies have addressed these variables by examining the accuracy of intraoral scanners as follows: in narrow spaces such as those for crowns or bridges (Ahrberg et al, ; Hack & Patzelt, ; Omar Ali, ;Pradíes, Zarauz, Valverde, Ferreiroa, & Martínez‐Rus, ; Syrek et al, ); covering larger parts of the dental arch such as a quadrant (Ender, Zimmermann, Attin, & Mehl, ); and covering the complete arch (Andriessen, Rijkens, Van Der Meer, & Wismeijer, ; Ender, Attin, & Mehl, ; Ender & Mehl, ,; Flügge, Att, Metzger, & Nelson, ; Güth, Edelhoff, Schweiger, & Keul, ; van der Meer, Andriessen, Wismeijer, & Ren, ; Patzelt, Bishti, Stampf, & Att, ; Patzelt, Emmanouilidi, Emmanouilidi, Stampf, Strub, & Att, ; Zhang, Suh, & Lee, ). Although the accuracy values in these studies differ from one case to another, it has been demonstrated that digital impressions are sufficiently accurate in small spaces (Ahrberg et al, ; Amin et al, ; Ender, Attin, et al, ; Ender & Mehl, ; Ender, Zimmermann, et al, ; Joda & Brägger, ; Joda et al, ; Pradíes, Zarauz, et al, ; Sakornwimon & Leevailoj, ; Schepke, Meijer, Kerdijk, & Cune, ; Syrek et al, ; Zhang et al, ), and the improvements implemented in the new versions of the scanners are resulting in improved accuracy (Imburgia et al, ; Mangano et al, ). However, in large spaces with uniform features (with no geometric differentiation in the radius of curvature), such as those typically associated with edentulous patients, the results are less impressive.…”

“…Intraoral scanners were first introduced more than 30 years ago (Duret & Preston, ). Since then, continuous steps have been taken towards their development and nowadays, with the improvements implemented by new devices and software (Mangano, Gandolfi, Luongo, & Logozzo, ), together with social acceptance of these new technologies, conventional impressions are being replaced by digital ones (Güth, Keul, Stimmelmayr, Beuer, & Edelhoff, ; Güth et al, ).…”

The potential of additive manufacturing technologies and their processing parameters for the fabrication of all‐ceramic crowns: A review

“…Closed systems integrate and offer data acquisition, processing, and restoration manufacturing through the same company. Open systems, on the other hand, provide more leeway by allowing for the acquisition and sharing of digital data, along with its subsequent manufacturing by different companies …”