Teledentistry and Its Potential to Reduce Care Inequalities in Dental Implantology: A Scoping Review Using the Access Framework Developed by Levesque et al.

Background: Teledentistry is widely seen as a promising route to widening access to dental care and narrowing social inequalities. For dental implantology—a technically demanding and costly field that unfolds across several treatment steps—it remains largely unclear whether and, if so, how remote approaches actually make care fairer. The aim of this scoping review was to map the available evidence and organise it in accordance with an established access framework. Methods: A systematic search was conducted, covering PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, which was complemented by a manual search. After deduplication, 68 records were subjected to title and abstract screening, and 17 reached the full-text stage. Thirteen studies were obtained (two through supplementary searching), while four could not be retrieved and thus remained unevaluated. This retrieval shortfall (24%) is a material limitation, and it is weighed accordingly throughout. Data were charted using the PCC scheme, and the analysis followed the access model developed by Levesque et al. Results: Five primary studies met the criteria, alongside one conceptual perspective paper without clinical data. Four secondary reviews and five background sources supplied context. The clinical studies were methodologically heterogeneous and mostly small, ranging from case reports to a single randomised pilot study. Structured appraisal revealed that none met all five quality criteria, and only three met the majority of them. Only two of the studies examined implant care directly. The remaining conclusions drew on broader teledentistry or general dental evidence. The findings point to high acceptance, shorter travel distances, and comparable clinical assessments; furthermore, they indicate that, while access has improved, disparities between underserved and better-served groups have not been reduced. Not one source linked teledentistry, implantology, and care equity in any measurable way. Conclusions: The evidence base is scarce, indirect, and rarely framed explicitly around equity. Teledentistry can lower access barriers, yet improved access is not the same as reduced inequality and, through the digital divide, remote care may even deepen existing disparities. This scoping review is therefore best interpreted as identifying an important research gap rather than demonstrating an equity benefit. Targeted, equity-sensitive studies on implantology are needed. Until such data exist, the desired equity benefit remains plausible but unproven.