ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
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.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy Between Digital and Conventional Definitive Impressions of Edentulous Arches: A Clinical Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Analog and Digital Full-Arch Mandibular Impressions: In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- In-vitro validation of a new method to assess the clinical accuracy of complete arch impressions.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Accuracy of full arch scans performed with nine different scanning patterns- an in vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Kennedy class III and IV dental arches: Trueness analysis of digitization methods and 3D-printing step.Brazilian dental journal · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Intraoral Full-Arch Scan versus Conventional Preliminary Impression.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Intraoral scanner-based monitoring of tooth wear in young adults: 24-month results.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Observational
- What to Prefer in Patients with Multibracket Appliances? Digital vs. Conventional Full-Arch Impressions-A Reference Aid-Based In Vivo Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Intraoral Scans of Full Dental Arches: An In Vitro Measurement Study of the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To update the available literature on the accuracy of conventional and digital full-arch impressions using the latest hardware and software, participants of different age groups and dental status were investigated. An established reference aid-based method was applied to analyze five intraoral scanners (IOS) CS 3800 (CS), iTero Element 5D (IT), Medit i700 (ME), Primescan (PS), and Trios 4 (TR), and one conventional polyether impression (CVI). Forty-five participants were classified into three groups: Age 27.3 ± 2.7 years fully dentate, 60.6 ± 8.1 years fully dentate, and 65.7 ± 6.2 years partially edentulous. The IOS datasets were investigated using three-dimensional software (GOM Inspect), and plaster casts of CVI were analyzed using a co-ordinate measurement machine. The deviations of the reference aid to impressions were determined. No significant differences in age between the three groups were observed by the IOS in terms of trueness (p < 0.05). These findings were confirmed for precision, except for TR. In contrast to CS (mean ± standard deviation 98.9 ± 62.1 µm) and IT (89.0 ± 91.0 µm), TR (58.3 ± 66.8 µm), ME (57.9 ± 66.7 µm), and PS (55.5 ± 48.7 µm) did not show significant differences than those of CVI (34.8 ± 29.6 µm) in overall view. Within the study, the latest IOSs still showed limitations in the accuracy of full-arch impressions. However, they seemed to be unaffected by age and fully dentate or partially edentulous dentitions with small gaps.
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.