Trial reportClinical oral investigations2015
Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 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
58 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of single-unit ceramic crown fabrication after digital versus conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic SocietyPooled it
- New Intraoral Scanner-Based Chairside Measurement Method to Investigate the Internal Fit of Crowns: A Clinical Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Trial
- Accuracy of crowns based on digital intraoral scanning compared to conventional impression-a split-mouth randomised clinical study.Clinical oral investigations · 2019Trial
- Clinical Evaluation of Accuracy and Speed Across Three Intraoral Scanners.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Marginal Fit Evaluation of Zirconia Copings Based on Conventional and Digital Impressions Using a Tooth Section Microscopic Examination Technique.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Digital Dentistry in Clinical Practice: A Scoping Review of Current Capabilities and Future Directions.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Marginal and internal fit accuracy of single-crown restorations: the impact of digital and conventional impression techniques.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Assessing Precision in All-Ceramic Fixed Restorations: Unveiling the Marginal Fit Through Digital and Traditional Impressions-A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.European journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Accuracy of Digital Impressions for Veneer Restorations: A Narrative Review and Case Illustration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- Evaluation of the Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impression Systems and CAD and CAM Workflows for Fabricating Dental Prostheses.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Effect of cement spacer on fit accuracy and fracture strength of 3-unit and 4-unit zirconia frameworks.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Accuracy of maxillary full-arch digital impressions of tooth and implant models made by two intraoral scanners.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2024Article
- Comparative evaluation of the marginal fit of computer-aided design-computer aided manufacturing fabricated crowns from direct and indirect digital impression - A systematic review.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2024Review
- The internal and marginal adaptation of lithium disilicate endocrowns fabricated using intra and extraoral scanners: An in-vitro study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Investigation of the effects of arch size and implant angulation on the accuracy of digital impression using two intraoral scanners: An in vitro study.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2023Article
- The effect of generation change on the accuracy of full arch digital impressions.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Intraoral Full-Arch Scan versus Conventional Preliminary Impression.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- The impact of software updates on accuracy of intraoral scanners.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Clinical evaluation of marginal fit of uncemented CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia three-unit restorations in anterior areas, using scannable and conventional polyvinyl siloxane impression materials.BMC oral health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this clinical study was to compare the marginal fit of dental crowns based on three different intraoral digital and one conventional impression methods.
methodsForty-nine teeth of altogether 24 patients were prepared to be treated with full-coverage restorations. Digital impressions were made using three intraoral scanners: Sirona CEREC AC Omnicam (OCam), Heraeus Cara TRIOS and 3M Lava True Definition (TDef). Furthermore, a gypsum model based on a conventional impression (EXA'lence, GC, Tokyo, Japan) was scanned with a standard laboratory scanner (3Shape D700). Based on the dataset obtained, four zirconia copings per tooth were produced. The marginal fit of the copings in the patient's mouth was assessed employing a replica technique.
resultsOverall, seven measurement copings did not fit and, therefore, could not be assessed. The marginal gap was 88 μm (68-136 μm) [median/interquartile range] for the TDef, 112 μm (94-149 μm) for the Cara TRIOS, 113 μm (81-157 μm) for the laboratory scanner and 149 μm (114-218 μm) for the OCam. There was a statistically significant difference between the OCam and the other groups (p < 0.05).
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that zirconia copings based on intraoral scans and a laboratory scans of a conventional model are comparable to one another with regard to their marginal fit. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Regarding the results of this study, the digital intraoral impression can be considered as an alternative to a conventional impression with a consecutive digital workflow when the finish line is clearly visible and it is possible to keep it dry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25693497What 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.