User Experience of Intraoral Scanners in Dentistry: Transnational Questionnaire Study

Abstract

Introduction: Intraoral scanners (IOS) are continuing to gain popularity in clinical dentistry, replacing the traditional impression-taking and related technology. Despite their increasing importance, there are few data on the utility and usage of IOS amongst dentists. This study investigates the user experience of IOS technology as well as the perceived quality of a variety of IOS used by dental clinicians worldwide.
Methods: An online survey of 1072 dentists was conducted to elicit data on the number of individual IOS used, their accessibility, the maintenance fees, and the programmes used. The first part of the questionnaire included demographic data and related questions, whilst the second part focussed on the specific IOS used by the respondents and the satisfaction with their scanners.
Results: We surveyed 1072 respondents from 109 different countries. More than three-quarters of the survey cohort (78.8%) use IOS in their daily work, whilst 21.17% do not. The average number of scanners owned by the respondents was 1.5 (§0.9), and in total, the cohort used 36 different types of IOS. More than one-third (38.6%) of the respondents used computer-aided design (CAD) software as well. As for the frequency of IOS usage, 51.5% used the system on a daily basis, 28.2% did so 2 to 3 times a week, and 10.0% did so once a week.
Overall, the top 3 IOS used by the cohort were Medit i700 followed by wireless Medit i700 and Dentsply Sirona Primescan.
Conclusions: This study describes, for the first time, the IOS user experience in an international cohort. More than 75% of the respondents used IOS on a daily basis in their practice, whilst Medit and Dentsply Sirona brands were the most popular scanners amongst the group. It appears that digital impression-taking technology is universal, and digital workflow in dentistry will continue to grow.

Full text

Scientific Research Report
User Experience of Intraoral Scanners in Dentistry:
Transnational Questionnaire Study
Ahmad Al-Hassiny
a,1
,D

aniel V
egh
b,1
*, Dorottya B
anyai
c
,
Ad
am V
egh
d
,
Zolt
an G
eczi
b
, Judit Borb
ely
b
,P

eter Hermann
b
, Tam
as Heged€
us
b
a
Institute of Digital Dentistry, Wellington, New Zealand
b
Department of Prosthodontics, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
c
Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
d
Department of Oral Diagnostics, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received 25 January 2023
Received in revised form
30 March 2023
Accepted 1 April 2023
Available online xxx
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Intraoral scanners (IOS) are continuing to gain popularity in clinical dentistry,
replacing the traditional impression-taking and related technology. Despite their increas-
ing importance, there are few data on the utility and usage of IOS amongst dentists. This
study investigates the user experience of IOS technology as well as the perceived quality of
a variety of IOS used by dental clinicians worldwide.
Methods: An online survey of 1072 dentists was conducted to elicit data on the number of
individual IOS used, their accessibility, the maintenance fees, and the programmes used.
The first part of the questionnaire included demographic data and related questions, whilst
the second part focussed on the specific IOS used by the respondents and the satisfaction
with their scanners.
Results: We surveyed 1072 respondents from 109 different countries. More than three-quar-
ters of the survey cohort (78.8%) use IOS in their daily work, whilst 21.17% do not. The aver-
age number of scanners owned by the respondents was 1.5 (§0.9), and in total, the cohort
used 36 different types of IOS. More than one-third (38.6%) of the respondents used com-
puter-aided design (CAD) software as well. As for the frequency of IOS usage, 51.5% used
the system on a daily basis, 28.2% did so 2 to 3 times a week, and 10.0% did so once a week.
Overall, the top 3 IOS used by the cohort were Medit i700 followed by wireless Medit i700
and Dentsply Sirona Primescan.
Conclusions: This study describes, for the first time, the IOS user experience in an interna-
tional cohort. More than 75% of the respondents used IOS on a daily basis in their practice,
whilst Medi and Dentsply Sirona brands were the most popular scanners amongst the
group. It appears that digital impression-taking technology is universal, and digital work-
flow in dentistry will continue to grow.
Ó2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of FDI World Dental Federation.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Key words:
Digital dentistry
Intraoral scanner
Survey
User experience
Introduction
Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing
(CAD/CAM) technology was introduced to dentistry in the
1970s.
1
Prior to that, dental professionals mainly used tradi-
tional manual techniques for various dental procedures such
as impression-taking and fabrication of prostheses. These
procedures are labourious, cumbersome, and relatively inac-
curate compared with the newer technologies.
2
Intraoral scanning (IOS) is a newer technology widely used
with CAD/CAM for milling machines (subtractive technology)
and 3D printers (additive technology). Using these tools, the
*Corresponding author. Department of Prosthodontics, Semmel-
weis University 1088 Budapest, Szentkir
alyi utca 47. Hungary.
E-mail address: vegh.daniel@semmelweis.hu (D. V
egh).
D
aniel V
egh: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2836-6747
Dorottya B
anyai: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0985-4737
Zolt
an G
eczi: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3799-9535
Judit Borb
ely: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3064-8724
Tam
as Heged€
us: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6440-4683
1
Ahmad Al-Hassiny and D
aniel V
egh are shared first
authors.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2023.04.002
0020-6539/Ó2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of FDI World Dental Federation. This is an open access article under
the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
international dental journal 000 (2023) 1−6
t

fabrication of a prosthesis can be digitally performed in a vir-
tual environment. Currently, both the IOS and CAD/CAM
technology are widespread and highly popular in virtually
every branch of dentistry including restorative dentistry, end-
odontics, prosthodontics, orthodontics, implantology, and
oral surgery.
3-8
The procedure of IOS begins by taking a direct optical/digi-
tal measurement of the patient’s teeth or gums. This creates
a 3D picture of the surface topography of the target teeth and
the gingival contours, the antagonistic tooth/teeth, and/or
the state of the dental occlusion.
9
The IOS method has both
advantages and disadvantages. The major disadvantages
most commonly mentioned are its purchase and the manage-
ment costs and the operator error of inexperienced individu-
als.
10
On the other hand, the main advantages of IOS are
reduction in patient discomfort, time efficiency, simplicity of
operative steps, and the feasibility of better communication
amongst the dentist, dental technician, and patients, particu-
larly in distant locations.
11-13
Although there are numerous articles in the literature on
the accuracy of IOS technology, few data are available on the
user experience of the technical procedure. Hence, we con-
ducted an online questionnaire survey on IOS user experi-
ence and the qualitative aspects of the technology in a large
international cohort of dental practitioners.
Materials and methods
The research method was based on a previous study of
ours, which aimed to discover the user experience of 3D
printing in dentistry.
14
Due to the limitations of the previ-
ous study, further modifications were incorporated to pro-
vide better outcomes in the current study. It has been
clearly shown that focus groups enhance the validity of
questionnaires by highlighting user concerns and provid-
ing feedback that would otherwise have been missed;
thus, our aim was to establish a focus group−related
questionnaire.
15,16
A total of 1751 dentists, dental assistants, dental hygien-
ists, dental specialists, dental students, dental technicians,
lab workers, industry members, and office staff members
from 109 countries were asked to complete an online ques-
tionnaire. A free web survey form of the Institute of Digital
Dentistry (Wellington, New Zealand), which was accessible
by computer, tablet, or cell phone, was distributed amongst
the respondents and the responses were received during a 1-
month period between October and November 2022. The
research team shared the survey through the newsletter of
the Institute of Digital Dentistry (9 Hillary Court, Naenae,
Lower Hutt 5010, New Zealand) and on Instagram, Facebook,
and LinkedIn social media platforms.
17
The study was con-
ducted by the Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles and
Good Clinical Practices. Participation was voluntary. Ethical
approval was not applicable.
The 2-part questionnaire was in English, which might
have limited the participation of other language speakers.
Part 1 of the questionnaire included 18 questions on the
demographic features of respondents and their experience
with IOS. Part 2 comprised 16 specific questions related to the
IOS technology that the participant chose to review. The
questionnaire is shown in Table 1.
Exclusion criteria included incomplete questionnaire or
responses from nondental professionals, incomplete ques-
tionnaires, and multiple or duplicate responses from the
same email address.
The online data were collected and stored using Microsoft
Excel and the data analysis was performed using Prism ver-
sion 8.4.2. (GraphPad Software Inc.) software. The data were
reported as means, standard deviations (SDs), ranges, or
absolute numbers with percentages.
Data collation was done by a member of the research team
(DV). The storage and collation of the data was done using
Microsoft Excel. The datasets used and/or analysed during
the current study are available from the corresponding
author upon reasonable request.
Table 1 – The questionnaire used in the study.
Part 1: Demographic and other data
1. What is your name?
2. In what country do you live?
3. What is your email address?
4. What describes your profession best?
5. Have you ever used an intraoral scanner for dental work?
6. How long have you used intraoral scanners?
7. How many IOS do you have in your office/clinic?
8. How would you describe your experience level with IOS and
digital dentistry?
9. Have you ever tried using your intraoral scanner to make a digi-
tal impression for fixed prosthetic appliance?
10. Do you think digital technology is more accurate than tradi-
tional casting?
11. Do you think digital technology may be more accurate in the
future?
12. Do you carry out any CAD (design) in-house?
13. Were you involved in the purchase of the design software?
14. How much did this design software cost to buy in USD?
15. Can you upgrade the software for free of charge?
16. Do you carry out any CAM (manufacturing) in-house?
17. Which milling machine(s) do you use?
18. Which 3D printer(s) do you use?
Part 2: Feedback on IOS technology 4
1. Add your intraoral scanner
2. Were you involved in the purchase of the scanner?
3. Did you participate in any education or course before you
bought the scanner?
4. What was the main reason you chose this intraoral scanner?
5. How easy was the process to buy this scanner?
6. In what price range did you purchase your intraoral scanner in
USD?
7. How satisfied are you with the price of the scanner?
8. How long did it take to ship the intraoral scanner after the pur-
chase?
9. Did the manufacturer or dealer provide education or course (in
person) with the purchase of your scanner?
10. How satisfied are you with the training course of the scanner?
11. How often do you use this intraoral scanner?
12. How satisfied are you overall with this intraoral scanner?
13. How satisfied are you with the speed of the scanner?
14. How satisfied are you with the support service of the scanner?
15. What is the annual cost of the intraoral scanner service and
support in USD? ($/year)
16. What is the main disadvantage of this system/intraoral scan-
ner?
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2al-hassiny et al.

Results
In total, our study received 1751 responses. However, 38.8%
(n=679) of these were excluded, as they were administrative
staff (5.5%, n=96), industry experts (4.6%; n=80), and office
staff (0.9%; 16) not belonging to the dental community or
were partially completed questionnaires (33.3%; n=583).
Finally, a total of 61.2% (n=1072) responses were analysed
from the respondents from 109 different countries.
The top 5 responses were from India (17.4%; n=186), the
United States (11.4%; n=122), Egypt (4.9%; n=52), Australia
(4%; n=43), and Canada (3.9%; n=42; Figure 1). These respond-
ents comprised 75.8% (n=813) general dentists, 16.2% (n=174)
dental specialists, 4.7% (n=50) dental technicians, 2.3% (n=25)
dental students, 0.7% (n=7) dental assistants, and 0.3% (n=3)
dental hygienists (Figure 1).
As for the responses, 81.9% (n=878) of the respondents
considered that, with the current technology, IOS are more
accurate than traditional casting methods, whilst 18.1%
(n=194) believed that traditional casting is more accurate.
Only 0.9% (n=10) of the respondents think digital technology
will not be more accurate in the future. More than three-quar-
ters of the respondents (78.8%; n=845) have used IOS in their
daily work, and 21.2% (n=227) have not.
Regarding the period of IOS experience, out of the 78.8%
(n=845) of the respondents who use IOS daily, 17.9% (n=151)
used IOS for more than 5 years, 12.9% (n=109) for 3 to 5 years,
34.3% (n=290) for 1 to 3 years, 25.3% (n=214) for less than 1
year, and 9.6% (n=81) for less than 1 month.
The mean number of scanners owned by the respondents
were 1.5 (§0.9). Whilst 24.7% (n=209) of the respondents con-
sidered themselves to be experts and 29.6% (n=250) beginners
in the use of IOS technology, 45.7% (n=386) thought they were
intermediate-level users. More than three-quarters (85.6%;
n=723) used digital impressions with IOS for fabricating fixed
prosthetic appliances.
More than one-third of the respondents (38.62%; n=414)
carry out CAD using in-house software. The respondents had
the opportunity to indicate various multiple design software
programmes they use, and the most common are shown in
Figure 2.
A total of 56.3% (n=233) of those who used CAD software
purchased these for in-house use. Accordingly, the software
costs ranged from US$0 USD (free software provided by some
distributors) to more than US$20,000 (Figure 3).
Two-fifths (40.3%; n=94) of the CAD users were allowed to
upgrade the software for free. Interestingly, 31.5% of the
respondents (n=338) had CAM tools in-house and 11.8%
(n=126) of them had a milling machine and a 3D printer; 9.8%
(n=105) have only a milling machine, and 10% (n=107) have
only a 3D printer.
Overall, the respondents used 36 different IOS (Table 2).
Regarding the frequency of the usage of IOS by the cohort,
49.5% (n=554) used the system daily, 27.1% (n=303) did so 2 to
3 times per week, 9.7 % (n=108) once a week, 4.6% (n=51) 2 to
3 times a month, 3.6% (n=40) once a month, and 5.6% (n=63)
less than once a month.
Over one-half (68.6%; n=768) of the respondents were
actively involved in the purchase of the IOS, and 40.1%
(n=457) of them participated in education or courses before
purchasing the system. The main reasons for purchasing the
selected scanner were recommendations by colleagues at
26.2% (n=201), followed by the purported accuracy of the sys-
tem at 19.4% (n=149), the IOS brand at 16% (n=123), the price
Fig. 1 – Country-wide distribution of respondents (countries with fewer than 10 responders are excluded).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
user experience of intraoral scanners in dentistry 3

at 15.8 (n=121), and the software design at 14.5% (n=111); 8.2%
(n=63) of the respondents mentioned miscellaneous reasons.
In our questionnaire, on a scale from 1 to 5, the respond-
ents could evaluate their satisfaction with the speed, support
system, accessibility, price, and overall quality of their
selected IOS (Table 2). Overall, the top 3 IOS were Medit i700
wireless (4,77), Medit i700 (4,5), and Dentsply Sirona Primes-
can (4,49). Regarding speed, the top 3 were Medit i700 wireless
(4,77), Dentsply Sirona Primescan (4,52), and Medit i700 (4,47).
The support system was the best for Medit i700 wireless (4,61)
and Planmeca Emerald (4,36), and Medit i500 (4,31). We
excluded devices assessed by fewer than 10 respondents in
the hierarchy rankings.
Accessibility was surmised to be the best for iTero Element
Flex (4,6), iTero Element 5D (4,5), and Medit i700 Wireless
(4,45). In the category of price satisfaction, the top 3 were
Medit i700 wireless (4,55), Straumann Virtuo Vivo (4,44), and
Panda P2 (4,33).
The main disadvantages of their selected devices as per-
ceived by the responders were, in decreasing order of impor-
tance, price (29.8%; n=333), scan speed (13.9%; n=155), quality
of the software (10.3%; n=115), support service (8%; n=89), and
the training course provided (7.1%; n=80), On the other hand,
17.6% (n=197) of the users answered that there is no main dis-
advantage and they are delighted with their purchased IOS.
The respondents also indicated their annual costs related
to maintaining their IOS (Supplement 1). A majority (53.1%;
n=595) of the respondents had no maintenance cost, whilst
5.3% (n=60) spent US$101-250, 5.9% (n=66) spent US$251-500,
7.51% (n=84) spent US$500-1000, 8.31% (n=93) spent US$1001-
2000, 9.4 % (n=106) spent US$2001-5000, and 2.5% (n=28) paid
more than US$5000 for the maintenance of their owned IOS.
(A detailed breakdown is provided in the supplementary
data.)
Discussion
Over the past few decades, digital technologies including IOS
technology have revolutionised the clinical approach to med-
icine and dentistry. Although IOS technology is relatively
widely used in dentistry, there are few regional or
Fig. 2 – The type of computer-aided design (CAD) software used by the respondents and their popularity.
Fig. 3 – The cost of computer-aided design (CAD) software used by the respondents.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4al-hassiny et al.

transnational data on the utility, usage, and user experience
of this technology amongst the dental profession. The current
international questionnaire study provides a glimpse of the
foregoing characteristics of IOS used by dentists in more than
109 countries.
Our aim was to learn more about the user experience,
using social networks such as Institute of Digital Dentistry
(IDD) newsletter, where colleagues from around the world are
educated on the appropriate use of IOS, 3D printing, and other
digital technologies and workflows. Reaching out to these col-
leagues and collecting data would make it possible to under-
stand the advantages and disadvantages of IOS technology,
thus rendering valuable help for others who are planning to
invest in the technology. Digital investment into this ecosys-
tem needs proper planning, as the software and hardware are
relatively expensive, whilst the disparate technologies may
not cross-communicate well.
This very large (1072 responses) questionnaire study was
distributed in 109 countries. In total, 239 responses (22.3%)
were from Europe, 219 (20.4%) from Asia, and 197 (18.4%)
from North America. Africa was in the fourth place, with 119
(11.1%) answers, and the rest of the continents comprised 298
responses. This response rate is considered to be satisfactory
for such large questionnaire studies.
The majority of the responses were from India (17.4%), fol-
lowed by the US (11.4%), Egypt (4.9%), Australia (4%), and Can-
ada (3.9%). Such geographic representation incorporating
Asia, the US, and Europe could therefore be construed as
transnational. We believe this to be the first such transna-
tional survey of IOS reported in the literature.
When manufacturers and distributors sell their wares,
they usually highlight the advantages of the specific IOS
brands. However, it appears that the disadvantages usually
surface only after the purchase of the equipment, and this
was clearly shown in the study as a large proportion of the
responders were unhappy about the quality of the software,
the support services, and the training courses provided.
18
Hence, appropriate education and training on the manage-
ment of these devices are crucial, as IOS serve several func-
tions, from simple scanning to more complicated software
and CAD functions.
One interesting revelation in our study was the large vari-
ety of IOS scanner systems and software available worldwide,
as we noted more than 35 different systems used by the res-
ponders. It will be interesting to study the compatibility
between the disparate software and hardware. This implies
that although there have been requests towards more open
and compatible systems that permit communication between
independent components, the manufacturers do not pay
much heed to such requests or calls. Uniformity and compati-
bility of software and hardware make it possible to create and
transfer images to CAD devices using a wide range of image
acquisition devices.
19-21
We noted that more than one-half of the respondents used
their IOS system on a daily basis, and more than one-quarter
used it 2 to 3 times a week, implying that scanner use is
becoming universally common. Our data imply that in future
this will be a part of routine dentistry due to their simplicity
and effectiveness. It is tempting to speculate that together
with artificial intelligence systems that are beginning to enter
the medical and dental field, it is likely that many far-reach-
ing technological advances in IOS may occur in the future.
The survey also indicated that the maintenance cost of the
IOS varied considerably from a few hundred dollars to more
than $1000 per year in different countries as well as in the
same country. Such costs depend on a number of factors
such as the frequency of use and the IOS brand, and these are
important considerations to bear in mind when purchasing a
new IOS and software. Further comparative studies should be
undertaken to provide relevant data to the dental community
Table 2 – The quality of the different intraoral scanners (IOS) as evaluated by the responders.
Type of intraoral scanner No. Overall Speed Support Accessibility*Price*
Medit i700 179 4.50 4.47 4.30 4.27 4.14
3Shape TRIOS 3 162 4.19 4.22 3.70 4.02 3.26
Dentsply Sirona Primescan 121 4.49 4.52 3.88 4.23 3.51
CEREC Omnicam 106 3.68 3.46 3.50 3.89 3.10
Medit i500 106 4.24 3.86 4.02 4.37 3.95
3Shape TRIOS 4 60 4.35 4.38 3.72 4.09 3.55
iTero Element 2 42 3.76 3.62 3.95 3.86 3.24
Medit i600 39 4.41 4.31 4.31 4.22 4.22
Shining 3D Aoralscan 3 39 4.15 4.44 4.05 4.35 4.12
Medit i700 Wireless 31 4.77 4.77 4.61 4.45 4.55
iTero Element 5D Plus 28 4.25 4.29 4.04 4.32 3.36
3DISC Heron IOS 25 3.64 3.52 3.68 4.29 4.00
Dexis Carestream CS 3600 17 3.47 3.18 3.29 4.20 3.00
iTero Element 5D 17 3.94 4.06 3.88 4.50 3.17
Straumann Virtuo Vivo 16 3.86 3.56 3.94 4.44 4.44
Planmeca Emerald S 13 4.00 3.92 4.31 4.17 3.17
Eighteeth Helios 600 12 4.25 4.25 4.00 4.38 4.13
iTero Element Flex 11 4.27 4.36 4.27 4.60 4.00
Panda P2 11 4.09 4.09 3.91 4.22 4.33
Planmeca Emerald 11 3.90 3.82 4.36 4.20 3.30
3Shape TRIOS 5 10 4.00 3.90 3.70 3.50 3.17
* Only those who purchased the IOS are included in the table; fewer than 10 type systems evaluated were excluded.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
user experience of intraoral scanners in dentistry 5

in this context. Currently, the only data available are derived
from the manufacturers, excluding the users in the field.
In conclusion, our questionnaire study describes, for the
first time, the IOS user experience in an international cohort
of more than 1000 participants. More than 75% of the
respondents used IOS on a daily basis in their practice, whilst
2 specific brands (Medit and Dentsply Sirona) were the front-
runners amongst the respondents. It appears that digital
impression-taking technology is universal, and digital work-
flow will continue to grow in dentistry.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank IDD and Semmelweis University staff for
advisory consultations.
Author contributions
Ahmad Al-Hassiny and D
aniel V
egh share first authorship
and contributed equally to this study. P
eter Hermann and
Tam
as Heged€
us are joint senior authors. All authors contrib-
uted to the study’s conception and design.
Funding
The authors were financially supported (publication fee and
open access fee) by Semmelweis University.
Conflict of interest
None disclosed.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be
found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.identj.2023.04.002.
REFERENCES
1. Takeuchi Y, Koizumi H, Furuchi M, Sato Y, Ohkubo C, Matsu-
mura H. Use of digital impression systems with IOS for fabri-
cating restorations and fixed dental prostheses. J Oral Sci
2018;60(1):1–7. doi: 10.2334/josnusd.17-0444.
2. Ahlholm P, Sipil€
a K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital
versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a
review. J Prosthodont 2018;27(1):35–41. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12527.
3. Spitznagel FA, Boldt J, Gierthmuehlen PC. CAD/CAM ceramic
restorative materials for natural teeth. J Dent Res 2018;97
(10):1082–91. doi: 10.1177/0022034518779759.
4. Baba NZ, Goodacre BJ, Goodacre CJ, M€
uller F, Wagner S. CAD/
CAM complete denture systems and physical properties: a
review of the literature. J Prosthodont 2021;30(S2):113–24. doi:
10.1111/jopr.13243.
5. Anderson J, Wealleans J, Ray J. Endodontic applications of
3D printing. Int Endod J 2018;51(9):1005–18. doi: 10.1111/
iej.12917.
6. Charavet C, Van Hede D, Maes N, Albert A, Lambert F. Disen-
tangling the effects of CAD/CAM customised appliances and
piezocision in orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 2021;91
(6):764–71. doi: 10.2319/112620-962.1.
7. Elnagar MH, Aronovich S, Kusnoto B. Digital workflow for
combined orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. Oral Maxil-
lofac Surg Clin North Am 2020;32(1):1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.com-
s.2019.08.004.
8. Kapos T, Evans C. CAD/CAM technology for implant abut-
ments, crowns, and superstructures. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Implants 2014;29(Suppl):117–36. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.
g2.3.
9. Suese K. Progress in digital dentistry: the practical use of
intraoral scanners. Dent Mater J 2020;39(1):52–6. doi: 10.4012/
dmj.2019-224.
10. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. IOS in dentistry:
a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health 2017;17
(1):149. doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x.
11. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Gallucci GO, Doukoudakis A,
Weber HP, Chronopoulos V. Accuracy of implant impressions
for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic
review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29(4):836–45. doi:
10.11607/jomi.3625.
12. Burzynski JA, Firestone AR, Beck FM, Fields Jr HW, Deguchi T.
Comparison of digital IOS and alginate impressions: time and
patient satisfaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;153
(4):534–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.08.017.
13. Sawase T, Kuroshima S. The current clinical relevancy of IOS
in implant dentistry. Dent Mater J 2020;39(1):57–61. doi:
10.4012/dmj.2019-285.
14. Hegedus T, Kreuter P, Kismarczi-Antalffy AA, et al. User expe-
rience and sustainability of 3D printing in dentistry. Int J Envi-
ron Res Public Health 2022;19(4):1921. doi: 10.3390/
ijerph19041921.
15. Rolls K, Hansen M, Jackson D, Elliott D. How health care pro-
fessionals use social media to create virtual communities: an
integrative review. J Med Internet Res 2016;18(6):e166. doi:
10.2196/jmir.5312.
16. Surani Z, Hirani R, Elias A, et al. Social media usage among
health care providers. BMC Res Notes 2017;10:654. doi:
10.1186/s13104-017-2993-y.
17. Ahmad Al-Hassiny, CEO of IDD. Available from: https://insti-
tuteofdigitaldentistry.com/about/. Accessed 17 January 2023.
18. Spagnuolo G, Sorrentino R. The role of digital devices in den-
tistry: clinical trends and scientific evidences. J Clin Med
2020;9(6):1692. doi: 10.3390/jcm9061692.
19. Nikoyan L, Patel R. Intraoral scanner, three-dimensional
imaging, and three-dimensional printing in the dental office.
Dent Clin North Am 2020;64(2):365–78. doi: 10.1016/j.
cden.2019.12.004.
20. Giustini D, Ali SM, Fraser M, Kamel Boulos MN. Effective uses
of social media in public health and medicine: a systematic
review of systematic reviews. Online J Public Health Inform
2018;10(2):e215. doi: 10.5210/ojphi.v10i2.8270.
21. Revilla-Le
on M. We are a 3D printing generation. J Prostho-
dont 2022;31(S1):3. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13423.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6al-hassiny et al.