ArticleScanning2021
Bias Evaluation of the Accuracy of Two Extraoral Scanners and an Intraoral Scanner Based on ADA Standards.
Article in Scanning, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of photogrammetric technique versus conventional impression technique for implant-supported fixed complete dentures.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of direct and digital measurements of peri-implant defects using CBCT, ultrasound, and intraoral scanning.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2026Article
- Impact of crown and inlay size variations on the accuracy of various digital impression techniques.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of intraoral scanner accuracy before and after calibration: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Printing outsourced orthognathic surgical splints in-house: a dimensional verification process for point-of-care printing.3D printing in medicine · 2025Article
- In vitro assessment of the accuracy of two intra-oral scanners for post space scanning in a fully digital workflow.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Article
- The internal and marginal adaptation of lithium disilicate endocrowns fabricated using intra and extraoral scanners: An in-vitro study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Intraoral scanners in children: evaluation of the patient perception, reliability and reproducibility, and chairside time-A systematic review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Review
- [Degree of reliability of the assessment of the Bolton analysis in three-dimensional virtual models versus plaster models. a review].Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The spread and application of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology have contributed to the rapid development of digitalization in dentistry. The accuracy of scan results is closely related to the devising subsequent treatment plans and outcomes. Professional standards for evaluating scanners are specified in the American National Standard/American Dental Association Standard 132 (ANSI/ADA No. 132). The aims of this study were to use the three samples mentioned in ANSI/ADA No. 132 and evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of two extraoral scanners and an intraoral scanner based on the inspection standards recommended by ANSI/ADA No. 132. In this study, two trained operators used two extraoral scanners (E4, 3Shape, Denmark & SHINING DS100+, Shining, China) and an intraoral scanner (TRIOS SERIES3, 3Shape, Denmark) to perform 30 scans of each of the three samples at a temperature of 25 ± 2°C and export standard tessellation language files and used reverse engineering software to perform measurements and iterative nearest point matching experiments. The measured values obtained were compared with the reference values measured by a coordinate measuring machine (NC8107, Leader Metrology, USA). We performed a normal distribution test (Shapiro-Wilk test), the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test, and an independent-samples
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.