AIM: To develop consensus-based, clinically oriented recommendations for a safe and reliable use of intraoral scanners (IOS), focusing on prerequisites, scan acquisition, data processing, and patient-reported measured outcomes within digital dental workflows. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This guideline was developed according to the German S2k methodology under the supervision of the German dental societies "DGCZ" and "DGZMK". Interdisciplinary expert groups represented 29 dental societies, formulated recommendations through structured consensus processes, including nominal group techniques and a formal consensus conference. A systematic literature search (PubMed, Web of Science) identified 122 relevant publications, prioritizing in vivo studies and systematic reviews. Where evidence was limited, selected in vitro studies were included by the working groups of the experts. RESULTS: All statements achieved strong consensus (>95% agreement). Clinical performance of IOS depends on the integrity of the entire digital workflow, including data processing and system interoperability. Accuracy is influenced by scan strategy, span, and system-specific factors. Larger scan fields are prone to cumulative errors. High-quality outcomes require controlled clinical conditions, proper scanning techniques, and adherence to manufacturer directives. Regular system validation and calibration are essential. However, IOS may improve patient comfort and communication, particularly in challenging clinical situations. CONCLUSION: Besides accurate data acquisition, reliable intraoral scanning requires a well-integrated digital workflow with validated interfaces and processing pathways. Clinical success depends on the interaction between system performance, indication-specific application, and standardized handling. Consensus-based recommendations should provide practical guidance to ensure consistent, high-quality outcomes in daily practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Graf et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: