Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35750507›Full record

ArticleDental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials2022

The threshold of an intra oral scanner to measure lesion depth on natural unpolished teeth.

Polyvios Charalambous, Saoirse O'Toole, Rupert Austin, David Bartlett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Damage of irradiated teeth by ultrasonic scaling: an in vitro study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Recent Advances in Intraoral Scanners.Journal of dental research · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Polyvios CharalambousKing's College London, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, Guy's Hospital, Tower wing, London SE1 9RT, UK. Electronic address: polyvios.charalambous@kcl.ac.uk.
Saoirse O'TooleKing's College London, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, Guy's Hospital, Tower wing, London SE1 9RT, UK. Electronic address: saoirse.otoole@kcl.ac.uk.
Rupert AustinKing's College London, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, Guy's Hospital, Tower wing, London SE1 9RT, UK. Electronic address: rupert.s.austin@kcl.ac.uk.
David BartlettCentre for Oral, Clinical & Translational Sciences, King's College London, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, Guy's Hospital, Tower wing, London SE1 9RT, UK. Electronic address: david.bartlett@kcl.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R015643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate the threshold and accuracy of intraoral scanning in measuring freeform human enamel surfaces.

methodsSoftware softgauges, ranging between 20 and 160 µm depth, were used to compare four workflow analysis techniques to measure step height on a freeform surface; with or without reference areas and in combination with surface-subtraction to establish which combination produced the most accurate outcome. Having established the optimum combination, 1.5 mm diameter, individual depths ranging from 11 to 81 µm were created separately on 14 unpolished human enamel samples and then scanned with gold standard laboratory optical profilometry (NCLP, TaiCaan Technologies™, XYRIS2000CL, UK) and a clinical intraoral scanner (TrueDefinition™, Midmark Corp., USA). The sequence of surface registration and subtraction determined from the softgauges was used to measure step height on natural human enamel surfaces. Step heights (μm) were compared using two-way ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni (p < 0.05) and Bland-Altman analyses.

resultsSoftware differences were significantly reduced from - 29.7 to - 32.5% without, to - 2.4 to - 3.6% with reference areas (p < 0.0001) and the addition of surface-subtraction after registration reduced this further to 0.0 to - 0.3% (p < 0.0001). The intraoral scanner had a depth discrimination threshold of 73 µm on unpolished natural enamel and significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed compared to NCLP below this level. SIGNIFICANCE: The workflow of combining surface-registration and subtraction of surface profiles taken from intraoral scans of freeform unpolished enamel enabled confident measurement of step height above 73 µm. The limits of the scanner is related to data capture and these results provide opportunities for clinical measurement.

Indexed as

Dental EnamelImaging, Three-DimensionalTooth ErosionTooth WearHumansSoftwareDental enamelDiagnostic imagingDigital dentistrySurface metrologySurface registrationTooth wear

Identifiers

PMID35750507
PMCPMC10112273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.