With advances occurring in medicine on a daily basis, it was only a matter of time before essential gynecological investigations, such as ultrasound, were modified. Many clinicians remain unconvinced by its reputed advantages and 3D ultrasound is not without disadvantages. These mainly relate to the cost implications and training requirements. 3D ultrasound imaging is still at a relatively early stage in terms of its role as a day-to-day imaging modality in gynecology and reproductive medicine. 3D imaging has several obvious benefits that relate to an improved spatial orientation and the demonstration of multiplanar views, of which the coronal plane is particularly useful. It offers a more objective and reproducible measurement of volume and vascularity of the region of interest, and an improved assessment of normal and pathological pelvic organs through further postprocessing modalities, including tomographic ultrasound imaging and various rendering modalities. It also has the benefit of offering reduced scanning time, the option of teleconsultation and storage of images for re-evaluation. However, other than its application in the assessment and differentiation of uterine anomalies, there is very little evidence demonstrating that 3D ultrasound results in a clinically relevant benefit or negates the need for further investigation. Future work should ensure that 3D ultrasound is compared with conventional imaging in randomized trials where the observer is blind to the outcome, only after which will we truly be able to evaluate its role in an evidence-based manner.