Teledentistry and Its Potential to Reduce Care Inequalities in Dental Implantology: A Scoping Review Using the Access Framework Developed by Levesque et al.
- 1Department of Public Health, St. Elizabeth University of Health and Social Work, Námestie 1. mája 1, 810 06 Bratislava, Slovakia
Abstract
Background: Teledentistry is widely seen as a promising route to widening access to dental care and narrowing social inequalities. For dental implantology—a technically demanding and costly field that unfolds across several treatment steps—it remains largely unclear whether and, if so, how remote approaches actually make care fairer. The aim of this scoping review was to map the available evidence and organise it in accordance with an established access framework. Methods: A systematic search was conducted, covering PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, which was complemented by a manual search. After deduplication, 68 records were subjected to title and abstract screening, and 17 reached the full-text stage. Thirteen studies were obtained (two through supplementary searching), while four could not be retrieved and thus remained unevaluated. This retrieval shortfall (24%) is a material limitation, and it is weighed accordingly throughout. Data were charted using the PCC scheme, and the analysis followed the access model developed by Levesque et al. Results: Five primary studies met the criteria, alongside one conceptual perspective paper without clinical data. Four secondary reviews and five background sources supplied context. The clinical studies were methodologically heterogeneous and mostly small, ranging from case reports to a single randomised pilot study. Structured appraisal revealed that none met all five quality criteria, and only three met the majority of them. Only two of the studies examined implant care directly. The remaining conclusions drew on broader teledentistry or general dental evidence. The findings point to high acceptance, shorter travel distances, and comparable clinical assessments; furthermore, they indicate that, while access has improved, disparities between underserved and better-served groups have not been reduced. Not one source linked teledentistry, implantology, and care equity in any measurable way. Conclusions: The evidence base is scarce, indirect, and rarely framed explicitly around equity. Teledentistry can lower access barriers, yet improved access is not the same as reduced inequality and, through the digital divide, remote care may even deepen existing disparities. This scoping review is therefore best interpreted as identifying an important research gap rather than demonstrating an equity benefit. Targeted, equity-sensitive studies on implantology are needed. Until such data exist, the desired equity benefit remains plausible but unproven.
Related
- The perceived facilitators and barriers to the potential adoption of teledentistry among dental care providers in Saudi Arabia: A systematic review
- Targeted and co-developed interventions to address infection-related cancer inequalities
- Evaluating different large language model performances in evidence-based dental implantology: a blinded controlled experimental evaluation using expert panel assessment.
- Machine Learning-Based Fatigue Detection from EEG Signals: A Methodological Pilot Framework with Potential for Nursing Applications
- Current status and future prospects of biodegradable magnesium-based implants developed for orthopaedic applications
BibTeX
@article{eisfeld2026teledentistry,
title = {{Teledentistry and Its Potential to Reduce Care Inequalities in Dental Implantology: A Scoping Review Using the Access Framework Developed by Levesque et al.}},
author = {Vadim Eisfeld and Obaida Elmodalal and Peter Kišac and Erich Kalavský},
journal = {Oral},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.3390/oral6050120},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3390/oral6050120},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Teledentistry and Its Potential to Reduce Care Inequalities in Dental Implantology: A Scoping Review Using the Access Framework Developed by Levesque et al.
AU - Vadim Eisfeld
AU - Obaida Elmodalal
AU - Peter Kišac
AU - Erich Kalavský
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/01
JO - Oral
DO - 10.3390/oral6050120
UR - https://doi.org/10.3390/oral6050120
AB - Background: Teledentistry is widely seen as a promising route to widening access to dental care and narrowing social inequalities. For dental implantology—a technically demanding and costly field that unfolds across several treatment steps—it remains largely unclear whether and, if so, how remote approaches actually make care fairer. The aim of this scoping review was to map the available evidence and organise it in accordance with an established access framework. Methods: A systematic search was conducted, covering PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, which was complemented by a manual search. After deduplication, 68 records were subjected to title and abstract screening, and 17 reached the full-text stage. Thirteen studies were obtained (two through supplementary searching), while four could not be retrieved and thus remained unevaluated. This retrieval shortfall (24%) is a material limitation, and it is weighed accordingly throughout. Data were charted using the PCC scheme, and the analysis followed the access model developed by Levesque et al. Results: Five primary studies met the criteria, alongside one conceptual perspective paper without clinical data. Four secondary reviews and five background sources supplied context. The clinical studies were methodologically heterogeneous and mostly small, ranging from case reports to a single randomised pilot study. Structured appraisal revealed that none met all five quality criteria, and only three met the majority of them. Only two of the studies examined implant care directly. The remaining conclusions drew on broader teledentistry or general dental evidence. The findings point to high acceptance, shorter travel distances, and comparable clinical assessments; furthermore, they indicate that, while access has improved, disparities between underserved and better-served groups have not been reduced. Not one source linked teledentistry, implantology, and care equity in any measurable way. Conclusions: The evidence base is scarce, indirect, and rarely framed explicitly around equity. Teledentistry can lower access barriers, yet improved access is not the same as reduced inequality and, through the digital divide, remote care may even deepen existing disparities. This scoping review is therefore best interpreted as identifying an important research gap rather than demonstrating an equity benefit. Targeted, equity-sensitive studies on implantology are needed. Until such data exist, the desired equity benefit remains plausible but unproven.
SN - 2673-6373
ER -