ArticleBMC oral health2022
Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria.
Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.
- Color Comparison Between Intraoral Scanner and Spectrophotometer Shade Matching: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025Pooled it
- The accuracy of conventional versus digital (intraoral scanner or photogrammetry) impression techniques in full-arch implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review.Evidence-based dentistry · 2024Pooled it
- Oral health status and associated factors among rural older adults in China using a 3D intraoral scanner: a population-based cross-sectional study in four provinces.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Consistency of Intraoral-Scanner-Derived Occlusal Contact Distance Maps Between Centric Relation and Maximal Intercuspation.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- The Accuracy, Reproducibility, and Reliability of Orthodontic Measurements Obtained from Conventional Plaster Models versus Digital Orthodontic Models.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2026Article
- Digital impression accuracy for bone-level and tissue-level implants using scan bodies of different heights.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A Global-Local Attention Model for 3D Point Cloud Segmentation in Intraoral Scanning: A Novel Approach.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
- [Evaluation of the accuracy of three-dimensional data acquisition from liquid- interference surfaces assisted by a scanner head with a compressed airflow system].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- How does the consecutive use of intraoral scanners affect musculoskeletal health? A preliminary clinical study.European journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Accuracy comparison of scan segmental sequential ranges with two intraoral scanners for maxilla and mandible.Journal of dental sciences · 2024Article
- Caries Detection in Primary Teeth Using Intraoral Scanners Featuring Fluorescence: Protocol for a Diagnostic Agreement Study.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- The effect of generation change on the accuracy of full arch digital impressions.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography image segmentation of isolated tooth roots based on the dynamic threshold method.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- 3D assessment of the nasolabial region in cleft models comparing an intraoral and a facial scanner to a validated baseline.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Comparison of the learning curve of intraoral scanning with two different intraoral scanners based on scanning time.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- The impact of software updates on accuracy of intraoral scanners.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice of digital dentures among dentists.Journal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & research · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe evolution of intraoral scanners (IOSs) is rapid, and new IOSs appear on the market with different properties depending on the manufacturers. There is no uniform rating system based on a defined set of aspects that has reported in the literature that can be used to compare these devices. This validation study aimed to compare different IOSs based on objective and comprehensive parameters.
methodsIn this study, 12 different IOSs were examined. The IOSs that were tested in this study in order of their delivery included the 3Shape Trios 3 Pod®, Planmeca Emerald®, Straumann DWIO®, GC Aadva®, iTero Element 2®, CEREC Primescan®, Medit i500®, 3Shape Trios 4 Move®, Carestream CS3600®, 3Shape Trios 4 Pod®, Carestream CS3700®, and Planmeca Emerald S®. IOSs were evaluated in four different ways: (a)summary chart, (b)comparative assessment, (c)data based on in vitro measurements and (d)accuracy measurements. A scoring system was created to enable an objective rating of IOSs.
resultsThe differences among IOSs were demonstrated in point scores (summary chart[max. 10 points] + weight of IOSs[max. 2.5 points] + circumference of IOSs[max. 2.5 points] + in vitro scanning time[max. 2.5 points] + pauses in data capture[max. 2.5 points] + accuracy[max. 10 points] = summary[max. 30 points]). Trios 4 Pod achieved the greatest cumulative score (23.37 points), furthermore it earned the highest points for summary chart and scanning speed. Regarding scanning continuity, the best-performing IOSs, which tied at identical point scores, were the Trios 3 and 4 Pod, Trios 4 Move, iTero Element 2, CS3600 and CS3700. The most accurate IOS was the CEREC Primescan, although it earned the lowest points of the comparative assessment (heaviest IOS). GC Aadva scored 5.73 points of a maximum of 30 points, which was the poorest result in this study.
conclusionThe scoring system reflects the differences among IOS devices based on the evaluated objective parameters and can be used to help clinicians select the right IOS device. The new generations of IOSs have more special properties, and their accuracy is higher than the previous versions. Trial registration The permission for this study was granted by University Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE RKEB number:108/2019).
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.