ArticleClinical oral investigations2014
Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 136 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
136 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 444 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of Artificial Intelligence Models in Oral and Maxillofacial Prosthesis Restoration: A Systematic Review.International dental journal · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative Efficacy of Digital 3D-Printed and Conventional Stable Occlusal Splints in the Treatment of Temporomandibular Disorders.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2025Trial
- Digital versus Conventional Impression Taking Focusing on Interdental Areas: A Clinical Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Trial
- Accuracy of intraoral scans in the mixed dentition: a prospective non-randomized comparative clinical trial.Head & face medicine · 2020Trial
- Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients.Clinical oral investigations · 2015Trial
- Occlusal Adjustment in Free-End Implant-Supported Restorations: Digital Scans Versus Conventional Impressions With Full- and Half-Arch Techniques.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- Effect of patient position on digitally recorded interocclusal distance in prepared teeth: A computer-aided design and manufacturing-based evaluation.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society · 2026Observational
- Propolis-Based Solution Application in Extraction Socket Healing: A 3D Split-Mouth Clinical Pilot Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Intraoral Scanners for Three-Dimensional Assessment of Peri-Implant Soft Tissues: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Accuracy of Stereophotogrammetry Technique versus Intraoral Scanners for Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.European journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Digital Impressions of Implants With Angulated and Different Vertical Positions in the Full Arch: An In Vitro Study.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Staged Full-Arch Rehabilitation With Tilted and Pterygoid Implants: A Pragmatic Hybrid Analog-Digital Workflow With 2-Year Follow-Up.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Digital Imaging Accuracy Among Three Intraoral Scanners for Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Influence of deep marginal elevation on the marginal adaptation and fracture resistance of zirconia endocrowns constructed on endodontically treated premolar teeth: in vitro study.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Article
- A digital workflow for designing and fabricating a split negative mold of obturator for patients with palatal defects.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- The Accuracy of 3D-Printed Fixed Dental Restorations.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025Article
- Digital Approach Provides Predictability in Increasing the VDO in Erosive Wear: Clinical Technique and 9-Year Follow-Up.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025Article
- Influence of different dental scenarios on the accuracy of computerized optical impressions: an in vitro pilot study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- [Evaluation of the accuracy of three-dimensional data acquisition from liquid- interference surfaces assisted by a scanner head with a compressed airflow system].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2025Article
- Conventional scan body vs. scan bodies with auxiliary geometric devices: anFrontiers in oral health · 2025Article
76 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral scanners in full-arch scans. MATERIALS AND
methodsA representative model with 14 prepared abutments was digitized using an industrial scanner (reference scanner) as well as four intraoral scanners (iTero, CEREC AC Bluecam, Lava C.O.S., and Zfx IntraScan). Datasets obtained from different scans were loaded into 3D evaluation software, superimposed, and compared for accuracy. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was implemented to compute differences within groups (precision) as well as comparisons with the reference scan (trueness). A level of statistical significance of p < 0.05 was set.
resultsMean trueness values ranged from 38 to 332.9 μm. Data analysis yielded statistically significant differences between CEREC AC Bluecam and other scanners as well as between Zfx IntraScan and Lava C.O.S. Mean precision values ranged from 37.9 to 99.1 μm. Statistically significant differences were found between CEREC AC Bluecam and Lava C.O.S., CEREC AC Bluecam and iTero, Zfx Intra Scan and Lava C.O.S., and Zfx Intra Scan and iTero (p < 0.05).
conclusionsExcept for one intraoral scanner system, all tested systems showed a comparable level of accuracy for full-arch scans of prepared teeth. Further studies are needed to validate the accuracy of these scanners under clinical conditions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Despite excellent accuracy in single-unit scans having been demonstrated, little is known about the accuracy of intraoral scanners in simultaneous scans of multiple abutments. Although most of the tested scanners showed comparable values, the results suggest that the inaccuracies of the obtained datasets may contribute to inaccuracies in the final restorations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.