--- title: "Intraoral scanners vs conventional impressions: accuracy studies" description: "What a 2025 umbrella review and a 2024 systematic review report on intraoral scanner accuracy versus conventional impressions, and where the evidence is thin." url: https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/blog/intraoral-scanner-accuracy-studies publisher: Copeland Consulting Services email: drcopeland@joncopelanddds.com contact: https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/contact --- # Intraoral scanners vs conventional impressions: accuracy studies A 2025 umbrella review of 10 reviews found intraoral scanners generally saved time and improved patient comfort, but accuracy in partially edentulous and edentulous arches stayed a limit. A 2024 review of 23 in vitro studies found digital impressions generally more accurate for full-arch implant prostheses. Both stress limits in study quality. Clinical and technologyPublished October 26, 20264 min read This post summarizes published research for general education by Copeland Consulting Services. It is not clinical or purchasing advice. It names no products or brands, and it does not rank them. ## What are scientists comparing? They compare digital scans of the mouth with impressions made in a physical material. An [intraoral scanner](https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/glossary/intraoral-scanner) captures a [digital impression](https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/glossary/digital-impression) using a handheld camera. A conventional impression uses elastomeric material, often followed by a stone model. The 2025 umbrella review in Cureus calls scanners “a prominent alternative to conventional elastomeric impressions and extraoral scanning systems.” Researchers judge accuracy with two terms. The review defines them this way: - Trueness: how closely the scan replicates the true geometry of the target object. - Precision: the consistency of results under repeated measurements. A scan can be consistent yet off target. It can also be close to the truth once and vary on repeats. Studies report both. ## What did the 2025 umbrella review find? An umbrella review collects the findings of earlier systematic reviews. This one included 10 reviews published between 2020 and 2024, covering over 30 scanner models and many clinical settings. Its main findings: 1. Trueness and precision were the most commonly measured outcomes. 2. Compared with traditional impressions, scanners “generally reduced procedural time and enhanced patient comfort.” 3. Accuracy in partially edentulous and edentulous arches “remained a limiting factor.” 4. Meta-analytic findings supported the time-saving benefit of digital scanning. 5. The review reports that some scanner platforms performed better than others. This post does not name them. Read the underlying studies for any model you consider. ## What did the 2024 systematic review find? It looked at one narrow case: full-arch implant-supported prostheses. It searched major databases under PRISMA guidelines and included in vitro studies from January 2000 to January 2024. Twenty-three in vitro studies met the criteria. Eighteen used intraoral scanners and five used photogrammetry, a method that measures positions from photographs. The tally was mixed: Result Number of studies Digital technique more accurate 12 Conventional technique more accurate 6 Comparable accuracy 5 The authors concluded that, “within limitation of the included studies,” digital techniques were generally more accurate than conventional methods for this use. They also asked for standard methods and consistent reporting of outcomes so that more studies can be pooled in a meta-analysis. A tally of 12, 6 and 5 is not a clear win. It shows that results differ between studies, and the studies differ in design. ## How strong is the evidence? Moderate to weak in places, according to the 2025 review itself. The authors report that: - Most included reviews “relied heavily on in-vitro studies,” meaning lab work, not patients. - Few conducted robust risk-of-bias assessments or used the GRADE approach to rate certainty. - Only two reviews met high methodological standards on the AMSTAR-2 tool. Others rated moderate to critically low. The review also says software algorithms for image stitching and data processing vary, and that operator factors such as scanning strategy, angulation and experience affect results. These device and technique differences “complicate direct comparisons.” Its conclusion highlights clinical advantages and the “need for standardized protocols and higher-quality evidence in complex restorative scenarios.” ## Why do results differ so much between studies? The 2025 review gives several reasons. Studies use different scanner models and software. Image stitching and data processing algorithms vary. Operators scan with different strategies, angles and levels of experience. Researchers also define outcomes in different ways, measuring geometric deviation with different metrics. Those differences make it hard to pool numbers. The review also notes a practical split between arch types. Complete-arch work and partial or edentulous arches pose different challenges for a scanner, which is why the review reports that accuracy in partially edentulous and edentulous arches remains a limit. The 2024 review shows the same problem on a smaller scale. Its authors said they could include more studies in a meta-analysis if future research used standardized methods and reported consistent accuracy outcomes. Until then, the honest summary is “it depends on the case.” ## What do patients experience? The 2025 review reports that scanners generally enhanced patient comfort compared with traditional impressions. It does not tie that result to any one scanner or case type, and the comfort data in reviews are less detailed than the accuracy data. A practice can still ask patients and the team what they notice during scanning, and record the answers. Time is the other practical gain the review reports. Meta-analytical findings in the review “affirmed the time-saving benefits of digital scanning.” Time saved at the chair is real only if the scan is usable. If a scan must be retaken, or a restoration remade, the saving can shrink. ## What does this mean for a practice weighing a scanner? Accuracy is only one part of the decision. Time, comfort, case mix, laboratory workflow, training and cost matter as well. A [digital workflow](https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/glossary/digital-workflow) built on scans can also feed [CAD/CAM](https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/glossary/cad-cam) designs. Questions to ask: 1. Which of the practice’s cases would use scans: single units, short spans, full arches, implants? 2. What does independent, peer-reviewed evidence say for those cases and for the specific model? 3. Was the evidence gathered in a lab or in patients? 4. Who will be trained, and how long will learning take? 5. How will the team check the fit of restorations and track remakes? 6. What does the laboratory prefer to receive? The evidence above supports a careful, case-by-case view. Track your own remakes before and after any change, so your decision rests on your own data as well. Related reading: the [technology return-on-investment guide](https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/guides/dental-technology-roi) and the post on [AI and dental X-rays](https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/blog/ai-dental-radiographs-evidence). ## Next step Read the [dental technology overview](https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/guides/dental-technology) for how practices evaluate equipment. To discuss a related project, [contact Dr. Copeland about consulting](https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/contact?topic=consulting). ## Frequently asked questions ### Are intraoral scanners more accurate than conventional impressions? It depends on the case. A 2024 systematic review found digital techniques generally more accurate for full-arch implant-supported prostheses, within the limits of its studies. A 2025 umbrella review found accuracy in partially edentulous and edentulous arches remained a limiting factor. ### What do trueness and precision mean? The 2025 umbrella review defines trueness as how closely a scan replicates the true geometry of the target object. It defines precision as the consistency of scan results under repeated measurements. ### How strong is the evidence on scanners? The 2025 review says most included reviews relied heavily on in vitro studies, few used risk-of-bias assessment or GRADE, and only two of the reviews met high methodological quality by AMSTAR-2. The authors call for standard protocols and higher-quality evidence. ## Terms on this page - [Digital impression](https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/glossary/digital-impression) - [Intraoral scanner](https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/glossary/intraoral-scanner) - [Digital workflow](https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/glossary/digital-workflow) - [CAD/CAM](https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/glossary/cad-cam) ## Sources 1. [Cureus (PMC): Accuracy and Clinical Performance of Intraoral Scanners Compared to Conventional and Extraoral Impressions, An Umbrella Review (2025)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12553488/) 2. [Evidence-Based Dentistry (PubMed): The accuracy of conventional versus digital (intraoral scanner or photogrammetry) impression techniques in full-arch implant-supported prostheses, a systematic review (2024)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39134687/) Written by Copeland Consulting Services and checked against the sources above on October 26, 2026. Rules, data and guidance change, so check the linked page before you act on it. ## Keep reading - [Dental technology: digital dentistry, AI, how to judge a purchase and what the implant literature showsDental technology covers digital impressions, imaging, CAD/CAM, 3D printing, practice software and AI. Sound decisions rest on published evidence, not brochures. Review the study design, ask what the tool changes in daily work, count the full cost, and check patient data duties before you buy.](https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/guides/dental-technology) - [Dental technology ROI: how to evaluate a purchase before you signTo evaluate a dental technology purchase, name the problem it solves, list every cost beyond the price, check what independent studies say, plan training and workflow changes, then set a review date with measures chosen before you buy. A return figure is only as good as the inputs you can verify.](https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/guides/dental-technology-roi) - [AI and dental x-rays: what the evidence shows so farTwo peer-reviewed reviews report promising AI results for finding caries, periapical lesions and bone loss on dental radiographs. They also say most results come from experimental settings and note problems with data labeling, bias, and models that underperform on new data. The evidence supports AI as an aid to the clinician.](https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/blog/ai-dental-radiographs-evidence) - [Implant dentistry in general practice: training paths and what the literature saysGeneral dentists who want implant training can look at continuing education, society credentials and accredited residencies. Each path has its own published requirements, and a credential is not a license. This guide summarizes those paths from their official pages and two published studies. It gives no clinical advice.](https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/guides/implants-in-general-practice) - [AI in the dental practice: what it does, what studies show and what to checkAI in dentistry mostly means software that reads images or handles office tasks. Studies of radiograph tools show promising accuracy but often rest on weak designs. Some image tools are regulated by the FDA as prescription devices. Any tool that touches patient data raises HIPAA questions you should settle before use.](https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/guides/ai-in-the-dental-practice) - [Buying a dental practice: steps, financing and due diligenceBuying a dental practice usually runs in six stages: define your goals, get financing, value the practice, sign a letter of intent, complete due diligence, and close. Lenders, attorneys and accountants each own part of the work. This guide explains the steps and lists questions to ask. It is not legal, tax or financial advice.](https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/guides/buying-a-dental-practice) ## Talk with Dr. Copeland [Contact Dr. Copeland](https://joncopeland.multisites.ai/contact)[Email](mailto:drcopeland@joncopelanddds.com)