Knowledge, attitude, and practices regarding intraoral scanners among prosthodontists: A pilot cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

There is a lot of digital technology accessible in dentistry today. To enhance treatment planning and diagnosis, boost efficiency, save expenses, and improve accuracy. Regarding dentistry, three-dimensional (3D) technology is making a fast entry into the globe.

Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems and digital technologies continue to streamline the dental workflow and have become popular in recent years.^[1]

Intraoral scanners (IOSs) are routinely used to provide digital information in clinical dentistry for a range of situations, including diagnosis, restorative dentistry, and implant-supported restorations.^[2-4]

Trueness refers to the closeness of test results to the true or accepted reference value, while precision is the closeness between test results; together they result in accuracy.^[5]

Recent advancements in the field of technology have led to a steady rise in the number of companies, along with an increase in the number of systems.^[6]

Furthermore, patients and private clinicians also benefit from its cost-effectiveness.^[7,8] Evidence suggests that complete digitalization can provide favorable clinical outcomes; improved retention;^[9] reduced risk for Candida colonization, and therefore, healthier underlying tissues enhanced material characteristics and biocompatibility^[10] improvements in the uniformity of clinical and scientific results, as well as the identification of anatomical landmarks on digital casts; reproducible and less time-consuming tooth arrangements; easy data storage; and easy for duplication.

IOSs have been reported to provide accuracy comparable to that of conventional impressions.^[11-13] However, scanning accuracy can be affected by scanning technology,^[14,15] operator experience,^[16-18] ambient light conditions,^[19,20] rescanning and stitching procedures,^[21,22] surface characteristics,^[23,24] presence of saliva or liquid,^[25] misaligned teeth,^[26] and dental arch size.^[27-29]

The scan pattern or scan strategy is another factor affecting accuracy.^[30-33] Scan patterns have been reported to affect trueness and precision for some scanners but not for others.^[33,34]

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the knowledge, awareness, and practice of IOSs among prosthodontists in central India.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This observational study was conducted in the department of prosthodontics at a dental college and included prosthodontists in Nagpur city. The ethical approval was obtained from the institutional Ethics Committee before the commencement of the study.

The questionnaire was formed and validated by subject experts in the department of prosthodontics. Post validation questionnaire in the form of Google Forms was circulated across central India for collecting responses. Data were recorded in an Excel sheet, and statistics were drawn.

RESULTS

Most prosthodontists reported awareness of recent advancements in digital dentistry, with only a small proportion expressing uncertainty. A similarly high level of awareness was observed for intra-oral scanners. The majority of respondents were also aware of different intra-oral scan strategies, while a few were either unaware or uncertain. Regarding the perceived influence of scan strategy on scan accuracy, most respondents indicated that scan strategy affects accuracy at least occasionally, whereas a smaller group believed it always affects accuracy and only a few reported no effect. Digital impressions were preferred by most prosthodontists either sometimes or always, with very few reporting that they never preferred digital techniques. Intra-oral scanners were most commonly used for implant dentistry, followed by fixed prosthodontic procedures, complete denture cases, and maxillofacial prosthetics. Most respondents considered intra-oral scanners beneficial in daily practice, while a minority felt that their usefulness depended on the operator or clinical situation, and a few did not find them useful.

The majority of prosthodontists regarded intra-oral scanners as a good investment for clinical practice, although some remained uncertain and a small number disagreed. More than half believed that intra-oral scanners may replace conventional impression techniques in the near future. Opinions regarding handling and maintenance were divided, with comparable proportions reporting scanners to be tedious to manage or not difficult, and some remaining uncertain.

DISCUSSION

The majority of prosthodontists (96.3%) reported being aware of advancements in the field of digital dentistry, indicating a high level of general awareness. Only a small proportion (3.7%) were uncertain about recent developments, suggesting a need for continued efforts to keep all practitioners informed through ongoing education and professional updates [Figure 1].

Close

Figure 1:

Are you aware about the advancement in the field of digital dentistry? 2. Are you aware of the intra-oral scanner?

Export to PPT

A significant majority of respondents (96.3%) indicated that they are aware of intraoral scanners, reflecting widespread recognition of this technology among prosthodontists. Only 3.7% reported being unaware, highlighting the overall strong familiarity with intraoral scanning in the surveyed group [Figure 1].

When asked about awareness of different scan strategies used in intraoral scanning, 88.9% of respondents reported being aware, indicating a high level of knowledge in this area. However, 7.4% stated that they were not aware, and 3.7% were uncertain, suggesting that while most prosthodontists are familiar with scan techniques [Figure 2].

Close

Figure 2:

Are you aware about different scan strategies used in intraoral scanning?

Export to PPT

Regarding the impact of scan strategy on the accuracy of intraoral scans, 74.1% of respondents believed that it affects accuracy sometimes, while 18.5% indicated that it always has an effect. A minority of 7.4% felt that it never impacts accuracy. These findings suggest that most prosthodontists recognize a variable influence of scan strategy on scan accuracy, indicating a need for clearer clinical guidelines and further education on optimal scanning techniques [Figure 3]. The preference between digital scan impressions and conventional impression techniques, 77.8% of prosthodontists reported preferring digital impressions sometimes, while 18.5% stated that they always prefer them. Only 3.7% expressed that they never prefer digital impressions. These results indicate a growing inclination toward digital scanning, with many practitioners adopting a selective approach based on clinical situations [Figure 4]. Intraoral scanners are most commonly utilized for dental implant procedures, with 51.9% of prosthodontists reporting this application. This trend reflects the growing integration of digital workflows in implant dentistry, where precision and digital planning are critical for optimal outcomes. The use of scanners for fixed restorations was reported by 25.9% of respondents, suggesting a steady adoption of digital impressions in routine prosthodontic procedures, such as crowns and bridges, where improved patient comfort and reduced chairside time are significant advantages. Interestingly, 18.5% of practitioners reported using intraoral scanners for complete denture cases. Although scanning edentulous arches presents certain technical challenges, this figure indicates that a subset of prosthodontists is exploring or incorporating digital techniques in removable prosthodontics, likely aided by advances in scanning software and protocols. Only 3.7% reported using scanners for maxillofacial prosthetics, possibly due to the complex nature of such cases and the need for additional technologies such as facial scanning or CT integration [Figure 5].

Close

Figure 3:

Do you know the scan strategy affects the accuracy of intra-oral scan?

Export to PPT

Close

Figure 4:

Do you prefer digital scan impressions over conventional impression techniques?

Export to PPT

Close

Figure 5:

For what purpose do you use the intra-oral scanner?

Export to PPT

A majority (74.1%) of prosthodontists found IOSs beneficial in daily practice, highlighting their growing acceptance in clinical workflows. However, 7.4% did not see them as useful, while 11.1% believed their effectiveness depends on the operator, and 7.4% linked it to specific clinical situations. These findings suggest that while digital scanning is widely valued, its success is influenced by user expertise and case selection [Figure 6].

Close

Figure 6:

Do you think intraoral scanners are beneficial in day-to-day practice?

Export to PPT

The majority of respondents (81.5%) considered IOSs a good investment for clinical practice, indicating strong confidence in their long-term value and benefits. A small percentage (3.7%) disagreed, while 14.8% were uncertain. This suggests that while most prosthodontists recognize the clinical and economic advantages, some still require more evidence or experience to justify the initial investment [Figure 7].

Close

Figure 7:

Do you think an intraoral scanner is a good investment in clinical practice?

Export to PPT

Over half of the respondents (55.6%) believe that IOSs may replace conventional techniques in the near future, reflecting optimism toward digital advancements. However, 29.6% were uncertain, and 14.8% disagreed, indicating that while digital methods are gaining ground, many still see a role for traditional techniques depending on case complexity and clinical needs [Figure 8].

Close

Figure 8:

Do you think an intraoral scanner can replace conventional techniques in the near future?

Export to PPT

The perception of handling and maintaining IOSs appears to be divided among prosthodontists. While 37% considered it a tedious task, an equal proportion (37%) did not find it challenging. Meanwhile, 25.9% were uncertain, indicating variability in user experience. These findings suggest that individual familiarity, type of equipment, and level of training may significantly influence opinions. To enhance usability and reduce hesitation, ongoing support and hands-on training may be beneficial [Figure 9].

Close

Figure 9:

Do you think handling and maintenance of intraoral scanners can be a tedious job?

Export to PPT

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study indicate a high level of awareness and acceptance of digital dentistry and intraoral scanning technology among prosthodontists. Most of the respondents demonstrated familiarity with IOSs and scan strategies, recognizing their potential influence on scan accuracy. Digital impressions were generally preferred over conventional techniques, although many practitioners adopted a selective approach based on clinical indications. IOSs were most commonly utilized for implant dentistry, with increasing application in fixed and removable prosthodontics. While the majority of prosthodontists perceived IOSs as beneficial and a worthwhile investment, variability in opinions regarding ease of handling and future replacement of conventional methods highlights the influence of operator experience and case complexity. Overall, the results emphasize the growing integration of digital workflows in prosthodontic practice and underscore the need for standardized clinical guidelines, continued training, and evidence-based education to optimize the effective use of intraoral scanning technologies.