Clinical accuracy and applications of intraoral scanners in periodontal assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
8 affiliations
- 1Department of Periodontics and Implantology, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India
- 2George Mason University, Virginia, USA
- 3Department of Public Health Dentistry, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, India
- 4Department of Prosthodontic and Crown & Bridge, JSS Dental College and Hospital, JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research, Mysore, India
- 5Department of Periodontics and Implantology, SreeBalaji Dental College, Chennai, India
- 6SIBAR Institute of Dental Sciences, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India
- 7Department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India
- 8Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India
Abstract
Introduction:: Intraoral scanners (IOSs) provide high-resolution 3D surface mapping and are increasingly being explored as non-invasive tools in periodontology; however, evidence on their clinical diagnostic accuracy relative to conventional standards remains variable. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical accuracy, reproducibility, and applicability of IOSs in periodontal assessment.
Methods:: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched until October 2025, yielding 923 records; 18 clinical studies were included following PRISMA 2020 and PROSPERO registration (CRD420251242067). Continuous plaque outcomes from three studies were pooled using inverse-variance random-effects modeling, with heterogeneity assessed using I2. Risk of bias ranged from low to high, with most observational studies showing moderate concerns.
Results:: IOS plaque scores were numerically higher than clinical references (MD=2.15; 95% CI –2.09 to 6.40), but this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.32; I2=46%). Evidence was most consistent for plaque quantification (six studies) and tissue landmark reproducibility (six studies), although certainty was low. Gingival inflammation (four studies) and gingival displacement (one RCT) showed positive trends but limited evidence. Gingival recession (three studies) and periodontal defect detection (two studies) showed very low certainty due to heterogeneity and lack of standardized validation.
Conclusion:: IOS enables non-invasive surface assessment and shows potential for plaque quantification and soft tissue measurements. However, evidence remains limited and heterogeneous, particularly for recession and defect detection. IOS should complement, not replace, clinical probing, and findings should be interpreted cautiously, given the limited number of quantitative studies and lack of standardization across outcomes.
Related
- A self‐retaining mouth prop for intraoral access during periodontal surgery in rat models: A technical note
- Assessment of Salivary Nitric Oxide Levels in Patients Diagnosed with Chronic Periodontitis Before and After Phase I Periodontal Treatment Consisting of Scaling and Root Planing: A Clinical and Biochemical Study
- Photobiomodulation Treatment Parameters and Clinical Outcomes Following Periodontal Soft-Tissue Surgery: A Systematic Review
- Operators matter \textendash An assessment of the expectations, perceptions, and performance of dentists, postgraduate students, and dental prosthetist students using intraoral scanning
- Shear-Wave Elastography in Musculoskeletal Pain: Current Evidence and Clinical Applications for Tissue Stiffness Assessment
BibTeX
@article{ramesh2026clinical,
title = {{Clinical accuracy and applications of intraoral scanners in periodontal assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis}},
author = {Konathala Santosh Venkata Ramesh and Saikeerthi Kalluri and Divyabhavani Vasamsetti and Sowmya Srinivas and Jagadeesan Bhuvaneswari and Nagasaireddy Konda and Guduri Vineeth and Sruthima Naga Venkata Satya Gottumukkala and Pasupuleti Swetha and Penmetsa Subhadra Gautami and Mahankali Sri Lalitha Mohana},
journal = {Journal of Advanced Periodontology \& Implant Dentistry},
year = {2026},
month = may,
doi = {10.34172/japid.026.4282},
url = {https://doi.org/10.34172/japid.026.4282},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Clinical accuracy and applications of intraoral scanners in periodontal assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Konathala Santosh Venkata Ramesh
AU - Saikeerthi Kalluri
AU - Divyabhavani Vasamsetti
AU - Sowmya Srinivas
AU - Jagadeesan Bhuvaneswari
AU - Nagasaireddy Konda
AU - Guduri Vineeth
AU - Sruthima Naga Venkata Satya Gottumukkala
AU - Pasupuleti Swetha
AU - Penmetsa Subhadra Gautami
AU - Mahankali Sri Lalitha Mohana
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/05/23
JO - Journal of Advanced Periodontology & Implant Dentistry
DO - 10.34172/japid.026.4282
UR - https://doi.org/10.34172/japid.026.4282
AB - Introduction:: Intraoral scanners (IOSs) provide high-resolution 3D surface mapping and are increasingly being explored as non-invasive tools in periodontology; however, evidence on their clinical diagnostic accuracy relative to conventional standards remains variable. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical accuracy, reproducibility, and applicability of IOSs in periodontal assessment. Methods:: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched until October 2025, yielding 923 records; 18 clinical studies were included following PRISMA 2020 and PROSPERO registration (CRD420251242067). Continuous plaque outcomes from three studies were pooled using inverse-variance random-effects modeling, with heterogeneity assessed using I2. Risk of bias ranged from low to high, with most observational studies showing moderate concerns. Results:: IOS plaque scores were numerically higher than clinical references (MD=2.15; 95% CI –2.09 to 6.40), but this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.32; I2=46%). Evidence was most consistent for plaque quantification (six studies) and tissue landmark reproducibility (six studies), although certainty was low. Gingival inflammation (four studies) and gingival displacement (one RCT) showed positive trends but limited evidence. Gingival recession (three studies) and periodontal defect detection (two studies) showed very low certainty due to heterogeneity and lack of standardized validation. Conclusion:: IOS enables non-invasive surface assessment and shows potential for plaque quantification and soft tissue measurements. However, evidence remains limited and heterogeneous, particularly for recession and defect detection. IOS should complement, not replace, clinical probing, and findings should be interpreted cautiously, given the limited number of quantitative studies and lack of standardization across outcomes.
SN - 2645-5390
ER -