ArticleDentistry journal2022
In Vitro Comparison of Three Intraoral Scanners for Implant-Supported Dental Prostheses.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term morphological changes of vacuum-formed retainers with different gingival margin designs: a randomized clinical trial.The Angle orthodontist · 2026Trial
- Material-dependent trueness of intraoral scanners: A comparative analysis of three scanning technologies for different crowns - An in vitro study.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society · 2026Article
- Influence of intraoral scanner type on the marginal fit of digitally fabricated lithium disilicate crowns.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Accuracy of 3 Intraoral Scanners in Recording Impressions for Full Arch Dental Implant-Supported Prosthesis: An In Vitro Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Article
- Intraoral scanning of the edentulous jaw without additional markers: AnImaging science in dentistry · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With continuing technological developments, there have been advances in the field of fixed prosthetics, particularly in impression-taking techniques. These technological advances mean that a wide variety of diagnostic and/or rehabilitation possibilities can be explored without the need for physical models. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of three intraoral scanners used in oral implant rehabilitation using an extraoral scanner as a reference and varying the scanning area. Three models representing different clinical scenarios were scanned 15 times by each intraoral scanner and three times by the extraoral scanner. The readings were analyzed and overlaid using engineering software (Geomagic
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.