ArticleScanning2021
Design of a Single-Tooth Model and Its Application in Oral Scan System Assessment.
Article in Scanning, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Evaluation of ODIS-1 Orthodontic Operation and Image Quality of Digital Imaging SystemCurrent medical imaging · 2025Article
- Applying machine learning to assess the morphology of sculpted teeth.Journal of dental sciences · 2024Article
- A Review of 3D Printing in Dentistry: Technologies, Affecting Factors, and Applications.Scanning · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intraoral scanners have been widely used in the application of dentistry. Accuracy includes trueness and precision; they have an important position in the assessment of intraoral scanners. The existing standard models are divided into the inlay and the crown, but the operation is relatively complicated. In this study, in order to simplify the current standard model, we designed a new integration model to compare the accuracy of two intraoral scanners (CEREC and TRIOS) and an extraoral scanner (SHINING). The coordinate measuring machine measured value is the gold standard. Values of the length and angle were analyzed by converting the scanned digital impressions into an STL (standard triangulation language) format to evaluate the accuracy of the intraoral scanner and to verify the feasibility of the designed model. The result shows that the integration model can be successfully scanned and imaged. In the case of the powder-free integration model, intraoral scanner precision, trueness, 3D fitting, and imaging are better than the extraoral scanner. It can be seen straightly from the measurement result and the 3D fitting result that the intraoral scanner can acquire the shape of the standard model integrally with good repeatability. Therefore, it can be concluded that TRIOS is superior to CEREC and SHINING in accuracy, and the integration model is feasible as a reference in the examination of intraoral scanners. The performance of the newly designed integration model that can be scanned is clinically significant, suggesting that this model can be used as a standard reference model.
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.