Is It Cost Effective to Add an Intraoral Scanner to an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Practice?

Intraoral scanning reduces procedure time and improves patient comfort in fixed prosthodontics and implant dentistry: a systematic review

“…Moreover, with the serious negative financial implications to dental practices imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic [ 54 , 55 ], the financial cost is an important consideration. A recently published study showed that digital impressions are more efficient and cost-effective than standard impressions, and implementation costs can be offset within the first year of dental practice [ 56 ]. However, IOS is not free of limitations.…”

Operators matter – An assessment of the expectations, perceptions, and performance of dentists, postgraduate students, and dental prosthetist students using intraoral scanning

“…[11] Similarly, a detailed cost-analysis of alginate impression making versus IOS in an Oral and Maxillofacial surgery practice identified that IOS was again less-expensive, and only required 1.04 years to offset the cost outlay in practice when calculated on the basis of impression making for two patients per working day. [9] Nonetheless, over time, with the increasing demand for new technology, it is expected that the cost will become less of a perceived burden. The acquisition of a digital image of the dentition will continue to evolve and so too will education around this technology.…”

“…[7,8] Similarly, the cost-efficiency of introducing the technology in routine dental practice is dependent on its intended applications. [9][10][11] Accordingly, understanding the expectations and perceptions, and the individual educational needs of various beginner operators when introduced to this technology are fundamental to ensure increased access and uptake of IOS by the dental team. This understanding is especially pertinent given the fact that the eventual replacement of CI will entail uptake of the technology by all relevant members of the oral health practitioner team, which includes Dental Prosthetists, known as Clinical Dental Technologists or Denturists in other countries, Dental Hygienists, Dental Therapists, Oral Health Therapists, and Dental Surgery Assistants.…”

Analogical and Digital Workflow in the Design and Preparation of the Emergence Profile of Biologically Oriented Preparation Technique (BOPT) Crowns over Implants in the Working Model

“…Lastly, it must be remembered that the main inconveniences of the digital method for the dentist very probably are the important efforts needed in terms of economic investment and training associated with the introduction of this technology in the dental clinic. This is particularly so considering that at the present time at least, the increase in quality of the final outcome is not always proportional to the efforts made [18,19,20]. Nevertheless, the “digital approach” has come to stay and we cannot afford delays in adopting this new workflow because things will become increasingly complex for those who “arrive late.” Classical and digital workflows succeeded in giving precise and complete anatomical information of implant position, including the soft tissue contour, and minimal bone loss and aesthetic success could be achieved using both approaches [21].…”