Accuracy of intraoral scanners versus traditional impressions: A rapid umbrella review

•The accuracy of intraoral scanners is comparable to conventional impressions in less than two-pontic clinical scenarios for fixed reconstructions•The accuracy of conventional impressions is superior to the intraoral scanners in clinical scenarios involving long-span areas•The patient preference and time reduction related to intraoral scanners are superior to conventional impressions•The reporting of secondary sources abstracts comparing digital and conventional impressions is deficient Purpose: This study aimed to (1) report the trueness and precision of intraoral scanning (IOS) in dentistry based on recent secondary sources and to (2) appraise the reporting quality of the titles and abstracts of the included literature. Materials and methods. This rapid overview searched the PubMed/Medline and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in March 2021 to identify reviews reporting on the accuracy of IOS. The reference list from the eligible studies was also screened for identification of other potentially eligible studies. The inclusion criteria consisted of English language systematic reviews or meta-analyses published between 2019 and 2021. The exclusion criteria were primary studies, narrative review, and extraoral scanners. The assessment of reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews was performed using the reporting checklist PRISMA extension for Abstracts (PRISMA-A). This was a self-funded research project. Results: Out of the full text screened 25 records, 11 reviews were included. Most studies supported the IOS approach being as precise and accurate as the conventional one. Only one study significantly favored the conventional approach over the IOS, and two studies abstained from making a recommendation. The IOS was significantly superior to the traditional technique in terms of patient preference and time efficiency. After applying PRISMA-A, recommendations for improvements on titles and abstracts of future reviews of IOS and conventional impressions are provided. Conclusion: Laboratory data indicated similar accuracy between IOS and conventional impressions, whereas clinical data found the same in less than 4-unit fixed dental prostheses. For more extensive definitive fixed solutions or removable prostheses, the conventional approach is recommended. IOS was superior in terms of patient preference and time reduction. More clinical trials are required to determine the clinical effectiveness of incorporating IOS in broader scenarios. Better q