ArticleBMC oral health2020
Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method.
Article in BMC oral health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 96 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of arch form on the accuracy of digital workflow in all-on-four implant rehabilitation cases (an in vitro study).BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Accuracy of 3 Intraoral and 1 Extraoral Digital Scanning Systems for Multiple Laminate Veneer Preparations: An In Vitro Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Effect of implant depth on accuracy: a comparative study using intraoral scanner and photogrammetry systems.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2026Article
- Accuracy of master casts fabricated for "all on 4" and "all on 6" implant situation in maxillary arch as influenced by the number of digital scan bodies: An in vitro comparative study.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society · 2026Article
- Effect of implant angulation on the trueness and precision of intraoral scanning and photogrammetry.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the accuracy of digital impressions obtained with confocal microscopy and structured light triangulation systems in pediatric patients with different mouth opening: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Accuracy of intraoral scans of the edentulous maxilla - an in vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Enhancing Intraoral Scanning Accuracy: From the Influencing Factors to a Procedural Guideline.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluating the feasibility of conventional and digital impressions of full-arch by the absolute linear deviation method: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Comparison of trueness, time, and number of images among different denture digitization protocols.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2025Article
- Accuracy of implant abutment level digital impressions using stereophotogrammetry in edentulous jaws: an in vitro pilot study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Comparative Analysis of Four Different Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A Systematic Review of the Use of Intraoral Scanning for Human Identification Based on Palatal Morphology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Predictability of intraoral scanner error for full-arch implant-supported rehabilitation.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Palatal asymmetry assessed by intraoral scans: effects of sex, orthodontic treatment, and twinning. A retrospective cohort study.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Marginal and Internal Fit of Ceramic Laminate Veneers Fabricated with Five Intraoral Scanners and Indirect Digitization.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Intraoral Scans of Full Dental Arches: An In Vitro Measurement Study of the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Comparison of Virtual Intersection and Occlusal Contacts between Intraoral and Laboratory Scans: An In-Vivo Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Effect of Scanning Origin Location on Data Accuracy of Abutment Teeth Region in Digital Impression Acquired Using Intraoral Scanner for Removable Partial Denture: A Preliminary In Vitro Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- The discriminative potential of palatal geometric analysis for sex discrimination and human identification.Journal of forensic sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundsIntraoral scanner (IOS) accuracy is commonly evaluated using full-arch surface comparison, which fails to take into consideration the starting position of the scanning (scan origin). Previously a novel method was developed, which takes into account the scan origin and calculates the deviation of predefined identical points between references and test models. This method may reveal the error caused by stitching individual images during intraoral scan. This study aimed to validate the novel method by comparing the trueness of seven IOSs (Element 1, Element 2, Emerald, Omnicam, Planscan, Trios 3, CS 3600) to a physical impression digitized by laboratory scanner which lacks linear stitching problems.
methodsDigital test models of a dentate human cadaver maxilla were made by IOSs and by laboratory scanner after polyvinylsiloxane impression. All scans started on the occlusal surface of the tooth #15 (universal notation, scan origin) and finished at tooth #2. The reference model and test models were superimposed at the scan origin in GOM Inspect software. Deviations were measured between identical points on three different axes, and the complex 3D deviation was calculated. The effect of scanners, tooth, and axis was statistically analyzed by the generalized linear mixed model.
resultsThe deviation gradually increased as the distance from scan origin increased for the IOSs but not for the physical impression. The highest deviation occurred mostly at the apico-coronal axis for the IOSs. The mean deviation of the physical impression (53 ± 2 μm) was not significantly different from the Trios 3 (156 ± 8 μm) and CS 3600 (365 ± 29 μm), but it was significantly lower than the values of Element 1 (531 ± 26 μm), Element 2 (246 ± 11 μm), Emerald (317 ± 13 μm), Omnicam (174 ± 11 μm), Planscan (903 ± 49 μm).
conclusionsThe physical impression was superior compared to the IOSs on dentate full-arch of human cadaver. The novel method could reveal the stitching error of IOSs, which may partly be caused by the difficulties in depth measurement.
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.