10 Common Myths About Intraoral Scanning—And What the Science Actually Says

Many clinicians’ concerns about intraoral scanning trace back to early generation scanners, outdated workflows, or secondhand anecdotes. Today’s evidence tells a different story. Below are the 10 most common misconceptions—and what peer reviewed science shows instead.

Myth #1. Intraoral scans aren’t as accurate as traditional impressions

Reality: Modern IOS systems are clinically equivalent—or superior—for most indications, including single units, short-span bridges, orthodontics, and implant restorations.

Accuracy issues were more common in early scanners
Current scanners perform exceptionally well when proper scanning protocols are followed
For full-arch implant cases, accuracy depends more on technique and scan strategy than on the scanner itself

Key takeaway: Accuracy is no longer the limiting factor—operator technique is.⁽¹^,²^,³⁾

Myth #2. Scanning always takes longer than a PVS impression

Reality: After the learning curve, IOS is typically faster overall. While initial scans may take longer during early adoption, time savings occur by eliminating:

Retakes due to bubbles or pulls
Disinfection and shipping
Adjustments and remakes due to distorted impressions
Key takeaway: Chair time decreases once clinicians are proficient.⁽⁴^,⁵^,⁶⁾

Myth #3. You need a perfectly dry field to scan

Reality: While moisture control helps, modern scanners tolerate saliva far better than earlier models.

Saliva acts more as a soft-tissue visibility issue than a scanning failure
Blood and reflection can interfere, but this is manageable with isolation
Retraction and scan sequencing matter more than absolute dryness

Key takeaway: IOS is forgiving—field management technique beats hyper-focusing on dryness.⁽⁷^,⁸^,⁹⁾

Myth #4. Intraoral scanning doesn’t capture margins well

Reality: Scanners capture margins extremely well when:

Margins are visible
Proper retraction and tissue management are used
Correct scan path and angulation are followed

Poor margin capture is usually due to:

Inadequate tissue displacement
Subgingival margins without retraction cord
Incomplete scan refinement

Key takeaway: If you can see the margin clinically, the scanner can usually capture it.⁽¹⁰^,¹¹^,¹²⁾

Myth #5. Digital impressions are only good for simple cases

Reality: IOS is routinely used today for:

Limitations still exist for:

Long-span full-arch implants (technique-sensitive)
Highly reflective materials without scan spray (rare now)

Key takeaway: Complexity is no longer the barrier—workflow planning is.⁽⁷^,¹³^,¹⁴⁾

Myth #6. Labs prefer traditional impressions

Reality: Most modern labs prefer digital scans.

Digital benefits for labs include:

No distortion from shipping
Faster turnaround
Easier margin marking and design
Improved communication via annotations and screenshots

Some labs only accept analog impressions because of equipment limitations—but this is becoming uncommon.

Key takeaway: Digital impressions improve lab consistency and collaboration.⁽¹²^,¹³^,¹⁵⁾

Myth #7. Intraoral scanning has a steep learning curve

Reality: The learning curve is real but short.

Most clinicians are comfortable within 10–20 scans
Dental assistants can be trained to scan efficiently
Training videos and AI scan feedback accelerate proficiency

Key takeaway: The learning curve is temporary; the efficiency gains are permanent.⁽¹⁶^,¹⁷^,¹⁸⁾

Myth #8. Digital workflows are too expensive to justify

Reality: While initial investment is higher, value often comes from:

Fewer remakes
Reduced chair time
Lower impression material costs
Increased case acceptance (patients prefer digital)

Many practices recoup costs within 1–2 years.

Key takeaway: IOS is a workflow investment, not just a piece of hardware.⁽¹⁶^,¹⁹^,²⁰⁾

Myth #9. Patients don’t care whether impressions are digital or analog

Reality: Patients overwhelmingly prefer digital scanning:

Increased comfort
Less gag reflex
Faster appointments
Perceived modernity and professionalism

This often improves acceptance of restorative and elective treatment.

Key takeaway: IOS enhances the patient experience—not just clinician workflow. ⁽¹⁶^,²¹^,²²⁾

Myth #10. Any intraoral scanner will give the same results—brand doesn’t matter

Reality: Clinical results depend not only on the operator, but also on the scanner ecosystem. This includes hardware, software, workflow design, and training support.

Peer reviewed studies consistently show that:

Accuracy, scan time, and render efficiency vary across IOS systems, even when used by the same operators
Software versions and updates materially affect scanner trueness and precision
Standardized workflows, guided scanning strategies, and training programs reduce technique sensitivity
In some systems, operator experience has less impact on accuracy than scanner design and software support

Outcomes depend on how well the system supports the clinician, not only on raw optical capability.

Key takeaway: Scanner results aren’t hardware only—they’re ecosystem dependent. ⁽²³^,²⁴^,²⁵⁾

Bottom line

Most IOS myths are remnants of outdated technology and early adoption pain points. With today’s scanners and evidence-driven workflows, intraoral scanning is accurate, efficient, patient-preferred, and broadly applicable across restorative, implant, and orthodontic dentistry.

What ultimately determines success is not just the scanner itself. It is also the quality of the product and the partnership behind it. Practices using DEXIS Imprevo, paired with IS ScanFlow, benefit from more than premium technology. They gain structured training, dependable support, and workflow guidance designed to help teams use digital tools effectively and consistently.

The science has caught up, and it’s clear: intraoral scanning works best when supported by proven technology, strong education, and a partner committed to helping practices succeed long after installation.

References: