Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 244

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence

Open access
Goracci, Cecilia, Franchi, Lorenzo, Vichi, Alessandro, Ferrari, Marco·2016·The European Journal of Orthodontics

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The interest on intraoral scanners for digital impressions has been growing and new devices are continuously introduced on the market. It is timely to verify whether the several scanners proposed for full-arch digital impressions have been tested under clinical conditions for validity, repeatability, reproducibility, as well as for time efficiency, and patient acceptance. SEARCH METHODS: An electronic search of the literature was conducted through PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase, entering the query terms 'digital impression', 'intraoral digital impression', 'intraoral scanning', 'intraoral scanner', 'intraoral digital scanner', combined by the Boolean operator 'OR'. No language or time limitation was applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only studies where digital full-arch impressions had been recorded intraorally were considered. RESULTS: In only eight studies full-arch scans had been performed intraorally. Only four studies reported data on validity, repeatability, reproducibility of digital measurements and their samples were limited to subjects in complete permanent dentition. Only two intraoral scanners, Lava COS and iTero, were tested. Scanning times were measured in six studies and varied largely. Patients' acceptance of intraoral scanning was evaluated in four studies, but it was not specifically assessed for children. CONCLUSIONS: The scientific evidence so far collected on intraoral scanning is neither exhaustive, nor up-to-date. Data from full-arch scans performed in children should be collected. For a meaningful assessment of time efficiency, agreement should be reached on the procedural steps to be included in the computation of scanning time.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ejo/cjv077

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 244

Metadata

Authors
Goracci, C., Franchi, L., Vichi, A., & Ferrari, M.
Venue
The European Journal of Orthodontics
Published
2015-10-20
Volume
38
Issue
4
Pages
422-428
ISSN
  • 0141-5387 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2210
OpenAlex
W2300127018
Cited by
244
References
3
FWCI
2.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ejo/cjv077
The paper
Goracci, C., Franchi, L., Vichi, A., & Ferrari, M. (2016). Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. The European Journal of Orthodontics. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv077

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.