ArticleClinical oral investigations2022
Accuracy of full-arch digitalization for partially edentulous jaws - a laboratory study on basis of coordinate-based data analysis.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of additive and subtractive digital workflow for the accuracy of removable occlusal stabilization-splints - an in-vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Capturing of interdental areas with digital and conventional impression systems and their impact on automatic tooth segmentation in CAD software: an in vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Digital Accuracy of Closed-Tray Implant Impressions: Influence of Polyvinyl Siloxane Viscosity and Subgingival Posterior Implant Angulation.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Accuracy of Analog and Digital Full-Arch Mandibular Impressions: In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Accuracy of full arch scans performed with nine different scanning patterns- an in vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Interface misfit of conventionally milled and novel hybrid full-arch implant-supported titanium frameworks.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Kennedy class III and IV dental arches: Trueness analysis of digitization methods and 3D-printing step.Brazilian dental journal · 2024Article
- Accuracy of digital impressions for three-unit and four-unit implant supported fixed dental prostheses using a novel device.Journal of dental sciences · 2023Article
- Update on the Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Full-Arch Impressions of Partially Edentulous and Fully Dentate Jaws in Young and Elderly Subjects: A Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of direct digitization of four different dental gap situation with two IOS (intraoral scanner). MATERIALS AND
methodsFour partially edentulous polyurethane mandible models were used: (1) A (46, 45, 44 missing), (2) B (45, 44, 34, 35 missing), (3) C (42, 41, 31, 32 missing), and (4) D (full dentition). On each model, the same reference object was fixed between the second molars of both quadrants. A dataset (REF) of the reference object was generated by a coordinate measuring machine. Each model situation was scanned by (1) OMN (Cerec AC Omnicam) and (2) PRI (Cerec Primescan AC) (n = 30). Datasets of all 8 test groups (N = 240) were analyzed using inspection software to determine the linear aberrations in the X-, Y-, Z-axes and angular deviations. Mann-Whitney U and two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were used to detect differences for trueness and precision.
resultsPRI revealed higher trueness and precision in most of the measured parameters ([Formula: see text] 120.95 to 175.01 μm, [Formula: see text](x) - 58.50 to - 9.40 μm, [Formula: see text] (z) - 70.35 to 63.50 μm), while OMN showed higher trueness for [Formula: see text] (y) regardless of model situation (- 104.90 to 34.55 μm). Model D revealed the highest trueness and precision in most of the measured parameters regardless of IOS ([Formula: see text] 120.95 to 195.74 μm, [Formula: see text] (x) - 9.40 to 66.75 μm,[Formula: see text] (y) - 14.55 to 51.50 μm, [Formula: see text] (z) 63.50 to 120.75 μm).
conclusionsPRI demonstrated higher accuracy in the X- and Z-axes, while OMN depicted higher trueness in the Y-axis. For PRI, Model A revealed the highest distortion, while for OMN, Model B produced the largest aberrations in most parameters. Clinical relevance Current results suggest that both investigated IOS are sufficiently accurate for the manufacturing of tooth-borne restorations and orthodontic appliances. However, both hardware specifications of IOS and the presence of edentulous gaps in the dental model have an influence on the accuracy of the virtual model dataset.
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.