AIM: To evaluate the clinical applications and indications of intraoral scanners (IOS) in dental medicine based on current clinical evidence and consensus-based expert recommendations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This guideline was developed according to the German S2k methodology under the supervision of the German expert associations "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) covering January 2019 to December 2024 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: IOS enable accurate digital data acquisition for a wide range of applications, including diagnostic and planning, orthodontics, implantology, and multiple selected prosthodontic indications. Comparable accuracy to conventional methods is achieved for dental or implant-supported single-unit and short-span restorations, while limitations exist in long-span prostheses (more than 4 units) as well as in extended partially or fully edentulous cases. IOS support digital workflows in nearly all fields of orthodontics and implant planning. A monitoring of intraoral changes over time can also be conducted. However, most systems are still limited to static occlusion and additional methods are required to record dynamic functional occlusal movements. Evidence for some indications, especially for removable dentures, remains limited, and clinical performance depends on indication, workflow integration, and operator experience. CONCLUSIONS: As today, IOS are reliable tools for many clinical applications which still depend on the clinical indications mainly. Careful case selection and complementary techniques are essential. Ongoing technological developments and further clinical evidence are required to expand their applicability and clinical benefit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ruhstorfer et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: