Knowledge, awareness, and attitudes toward digital dentistry among dental students and professionals: a systematic review

Digital technologies, including computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM), intraoral scanners, cone-beam computed tomography, three-dimensional printing, and teledentistry, are increasingly integrated into dental education and clinical practice. Their effective adoption depends partly on the knowledge, awareness, and attitudes of dental students and professionals. This systematic review synthesised evidence relating to these three domains. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 and prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420241044061). PubMed, Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source (via EBSCOhost), Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses were searched from inception to June 2026. Observational cross-sectional studies involving dental students or professionals and reporting knowledge, awareness, or attitudes toward digital dentistry were eligible. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection and risk-of-bias assessment, and extracted data were independently verified. Risk of bias was assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. Owing to substantial heterogeneity in technologies, populations, questionnaires, outcome definitions, scoring systems, and thresholds, findings were synthesised narratively without statistical pooling or calculation of cross-study averages. Of 1,826 records identified, 11 cross-sectional studies published between 2015 and 2025 met the eligibility criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 42 to 953 participants, and studies were conducted in India, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China, Libya, Pakistan, and Romania. Several studies reported high awareness of specific digital technologies, including CAD-CAM, cone-beam computed tomography, and intraoral scanning, although findings varied according to the technology and measurement approach. Knowledge findings varied substantially and were not directly comparable because different instruments and scoring systems were used. Attitudes toward digital dentistry were generally favourable. However, barriers related to cost, training, equipment availability, and technical limitations were frequently reported, while concerns regarding confidentiality, consent, and the reliability of remote diagnosis were mainly identified in studies assessing teledentistry. Actual clinical use was assessed inconsistently and could not be inferred from awareness or favourable attitudes. Six studies were judged to have a high risk of bias, while five had an unclear risk of bias. Dental students and professionals generally reported favourable attitudes toward digital dentistry, while knowledge and awareness varied according to the technology assessed, participant group, and measurement method. The heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the included studies reduce confidence in direct comparisons across settings. Future research should use validated instruments that clearly distinguish knowledge, awareness, attitudes, and actual clinical practice, together with objective competency measures and longitudinal or multicentre designs.