Kuz V. S., Teslenko O. I., Kuz H. M., Balia H. M., Lunkova Yu. S., Shemetov O. V., Martynenko I. M.

3D-SCANNING IN PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY: ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES, AND DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTS

---

Show/Download

About the author:

Kuz V. S., Teslenko O. I., Kuz H. M., Balia H. M., Lunkova Yu. S., Shemetov O. V., Martynenko I. M.

Heading:

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Type of article:

Scientific article

Annotation:

At the current stage of prosthetic dentistry, the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of masticatory system dysfunctions caused by partial or complete tooth loss are impossible without the use of modern 3D scanning technologies. These technologies ensure high-precision three-dimensional models of the patient’s teeth, jaws, and oral soft tissues. The intensive development of technology in modern dentistry calls for a more detailed study and comparison of scanning methods. The aim of the study was to examine the characteristics of various scanning methods in prosthetic dentistry and to determine the scope of application for each. Scanning is conventionally divided into two main categories: intraoral and extraoral. Currently, intraoral scanning is the most common. Its wide implementation in clinical practice is driven by the speed of the procedure, patient comfort, and real-time visualization providing high-precision information about the condition of the teeth and the supporting tissues of the prosthetic bed. Research aimed at evaluating the accuracy of intraoral scanning in the fabrication of fixed restorations demonstrates its high capability to reproduce preparation margins across various positions of the tooth stump shoulder relative to the gingival margin. However, the use of intraoral scanners can be complicated by the absence of proper oral sanitation (presence of carious lesions, dental plaque) or malocclusion. When obtaining optical impressions, it is difficult to accurately determine the margins of prepared teeth, especially in cases of bleeding or in aesthetically significant zones where subgingival placement of the restoration margins is required. This is explained by the fact that, unlike traditional impression materials, digital technologies do not provide mechanical gingival displacement, which complicates the visualization of subgingival areas. The use of an intraoral scanner allows for the direction and optimization of prosthetic treatment in patients with pathological wear of hard tooth tissues, collapsing bite, and secondary deformities, taking into account the necessary increase in vertical dimension of occlusion and reduction in the time required for masticatory reflex adaptation. A particular challenge is the scanning process in patients with complete edentulism. The most significant drawback of this method is the inability to reproduce the mucosal resiliency during 3D scanning. Unlike traditional functional impressions, digital methods record the static position of soft tissues without considering their functional changes during chewing and speech. There are several factors limiting the widespread implementation of intraoral scanners in dental practice. These include the high cost of equipment and software, as well as the variety of scanner models with differing technical characteristics‒specifically accuracy and speed‒which must be considered when choosing a device for clinical use. Therefore, the emergence of a new scanning system that does not require lengthy training and is not costly, yet ensures high precision and reliability, is truly essential for modern dentistry.

Tags:

Bibliography:

1. Manicot C. The father of the dental CadCam. Solutions Cabinet dentaire. 2021;(36). Available from: https://www.francoisduret.com/wpcontent/ uploads/2022/01/367-FD-2021.FD_.article.052021.objectif-sante.pdf
2. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J. 2009;28(1):44-56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.28.44
3. Skrypnyk I, Krymovskyi K. Klinichni aspekty vykorystannia tsyfrovoho 3D vnutrishnorotovoho skanuvannia. Oral and General Health. 2025;6(1):10-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22141/ogh.6.1.2025.211 [in Ukrainian].
4. Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, Viguie G, Viennot S, Robinson P, et al. Intraoral scanner technologies: a review to make a successful impression. J Healthc Eng. 2017;2017:8427595. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8427595
5. Samed Şatır, editor. Advanced clinical maxillofacial imaging: from anatomy to AI. Ankara: Akademisyen Yayınevi Kitabevi; Сhapter, Intraoral scanners in dentistry. p. 49-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37609/akya.4109.c6439
6. Eggmann F, Blatz MB. Recent advances in intraoral scanners. J Dent Res. 2024;103(13):1349-1357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345241271937
7. Doğu Kaya B, Şenol AA, Yılmaz Atalı P, Kahramanoğlu E, Tarçın B. Patient comfort assessment of intraoral scanners. Current Research in Dental Sciences. 2026;36(1):50-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17567/currresdentsci.1474109
8. Chytadze NN, Nikonov AYu, Zhukov KV, Mukhin YuV. Profilaktyka porushennia pryliahannia kraiu shtuchnykh koronok pry vyhotovlenni neznimnykh proteziv za SAD/SAM-tekhnolohiieiu. Problemy bezperervnoi medychnoi osvity ta nauky. 2020;(2):24-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31071/promedosvity2020.02.024 [in Ukrainian].
9. Uluc IG, Guncu MB, Aktas G, Turkyilmaz I. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 5-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses fabricated with CAD/CAM technology using direct and indirect digital scans. J Dent Sci. 2022;17(1):63-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2021.07.012
10. Alqahtani SM, Chaturvedi S, Addas MK, Alqahtani NM, Zarbah MA, Al Wadei MHD, et al. Internal and marginal fit of digitally fabricated all-ceramic crowns with auxiliary retentive features on short clinical abutments: a micro-CT study. PeerJ. 2025;13:e19813. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.19813
11. Fatah SH. Comparative evaluation of marginal fit between CAD/CAM and conventional metal-ceramic crowns. OTS Canadian Journal. 2025;4(5):91-100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58840/b5gdcv24
12. Andrade Villalobos M, Bennani V, Aarts JM, Ratnayake J. Accuracy of intra-oral scanners for full crown tooth preparations with subgingival margins: a systematic review. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2025;33(1):104-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2812Matias09
13. Se-Na Yoon, Jung-Suk Han, In-Sung Yeo, Hyung-In Yoon. Full mouth rehabilitation of a severely worn dentition using intraoral scanner and the CAD/CAM double scanning technique. The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics. 2020;58(1):67-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2020.58.1.67
14. Falih MY, Majeed MA. Trueness and precision of eight intraoral scanners with different finishing line designs: a comparative in vitro study. Eur J Dent. 2023;17(4):1056-1064. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1757568
15. Zarbakhsh A, Jalalian E, Samiei N, Mahgoli MH, Kaseb Ghane H. Accuracy of digital impression taking using intraoral scanner versus the conventional technique. Front Dent. 2021;18:6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v18i6.5649
16. Vitai V, Németh A, Sólyom E, Czumbel LM, Szabó B, Fazekas R, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of intraoral scanners for complete-arch scanning: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Dent. 2023;137:104636. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104636
17. Grünheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146(5):673-682. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023
18. Sfondrini MF, Gandini P, Malfatto M, Di Corato F, Trovati F, Scribante A. Computerized casts for orthodontic purpose using powder- free intraoral scanners: accuracy, execution time, and patient feedback. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:4103232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4103232
19. Alfaraj A, Alqudaihi F, Khurshid Z, Qadiri O, Lin WS. Comparative analyses of accuracy between digital and conventional impressions for complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses – a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont. 2026;35(3):252-274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.14094
20. Baciu E-R, Corneagă A, Lupu IC, Murariu A. Digital versus conventional impressions: a comparative study in single-crown fabrication. Revista Medico-Chirurgicala. 2025;129(4):746-755. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22551/MSJ.2025.04.14
21. Chen Y, Zhai Z, Li H, Yamada S, Matsuoka T, Ono S, Nakano T. Influence of liquid on the tooth surface on the accuracy of intraoral scanners: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2022;31(1):59-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13358
22. Buhl J, Mehl A, Ender A. An in-vitro study on factors influencing the accuracy of current intraoral scanners. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):41049. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-24904-w
23. Huang MY, Son K, Lee KB. Effect of distance between the abutment and the adjacent teeth on intraoral scanning: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(6):911-917. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.02.034
24. Chun J-h, Tahk JH, Chun Y-S, Park J-M, Kim M. Analysis on the accuracy of intraoral scanners: the effects of mandibular anterior interdental space. Applied Sciences. 2017;7(7):719. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app7070719
25. Lee SY, Son SA, Kim JH, Seo DG, Park JK. Influence of adjacent restorative material and distance on the accuracy of inlay cavity impressions with intraoral scanner: an in vitro study. Restor Dent Endod. 2026;51(1):e6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2026.51.e6
26. Snihur YuR, Hasiuk PA. Osoblyvosti zastosuvannia tekhnolohii intraoralnoho skanuvannia sered stomatolohichnykh klinik ta likarivstomatolohiv za danymy anketuvannia. Aktualni problemy suchasnoi medytsyny: Visnyk Ukrainskoi medychnoi stomatolohichnoi akademii. 2026;26(1):106-113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31718/2077-1096.26.1.106 [in Ukrainian].
27. Resende CCD, Barbosa TAQ, Moura GF, Tavares LDN, Rizzante FAP, George FM, et al. Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(2):294-299. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.12.011
28. Gavounelis NA, Gogola CC, Halazonetis DJ. The effect of scanning strategy on intraoral scanner’s accuracy. Dent J (Basel). 2022;10(7):123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/dj10070123
29. Oh KC, Park JM, Moon HS. Effects of scanning strategy and scanner type on the accuracy of intraoral scans: a new approach for assessing the accuracy of scanned data. J Prosthodont. 2020;29(6):518-523. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13158
30. Kumar S, Keeling A, Osnes C, Bartlett D, O’Toole S. The sensitivity of digital intraoral scanners at measuring early erosive wear. J Dent. 2019;81:39-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.12.005
31. Díaz-Flores García V, Freire Y, David Fernández S, Gómez Sánchez M, Tomás Murillo B, Suárez A. Intraoral scanning for monitoring dental wear and its risk factors: a prospective study. Healthcare (Basel). 2024;12(11):1069. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12111069
32. Pesce P, Nicolini P, Caponio VCA, Zecca PA, Canullo L, Isola G, et al. Accuracy of full-arch intraoral scans versus conventional impression: a systematic review with a meta-analysis and a proposal to standardise the analysis of the accuracy. J Clin Med. 2024;14(1):71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14010071
33. Rutkūnas V, Auškalnis L, Pletkus J. Intraoral scanners in implant prosthodontics. A narrative review. J Dent. 2024;148:105152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105152
34. Shemetov OV. Mozhlyvosti ta obmezhennia tsyfrovykh vidbytkiv pry povnomu znimnomu protezuvanni. Ukrainskyi stomatolohichnyi almanakh. 2025;(1):42-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31718/2409-0255.1.2025.07 [in Ukrainian].
35. Osnes CA, Wu JH, Venezia P, Ferrari M, Keeling AJ. Full arch precision of six intraoral scanners in vitro. J Prosthodont Res. 2020;64(1):6-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.05.005
36. Jung S, Park C, Yang HS, Lim HP, Yun KD, Ying Z, et al. Comparison of different impression techniques for edentulous jaws using threedimensional analysis. J Adv Prosthodont. 2019;11(3):179-186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2019.11.3.179

Publication of the article:

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine», 2026 Issue 2, 181, 98-103 pages, index UDC 616.314-089.23:617.3-071

DOI:

10.29254/2077-4214-2026-2-181-98-103