ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Results of a Surface Roughness Comparison between Stylus Instruments and Confocal Microscopes.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surface Inspection and Description in Metrology and Tribology-Vol. 2.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Influence of CLSM Magnification on the Measured Roughness of Differently Prepared Dental Materials.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Understanding the Relationship between Surface Quality and Chip Morphology under Sustainable Cutting Environments.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article presents the results of an LMM-R-2019 interlaboratory comparison. Such comparisons of different families of measuring instruments are one of the activities conducted among the calibration laboratories to maintain their ISO 17025 accreditation. Given that the study of surface roughness is becoming increasingly important in the field of dimensional metrology, the comparison focused on determining the Ra parameter on a pseudorandom metallic roughness standard using two types of measuring instruments: physical contact (stylus instruments) and optical (confocal microscopes). Among the aspects studied was whether the roughness measurements obtained using calibrated confocal microscopes could be compared with those using traditional methods since optical instruments obtain measurements more quickly and responsively than do stylus instruments. The results showed that roughness measurements using confocal microscopes are comparable with those from a traditional stylus instrument.
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.