ArticleClinical oral investigations2023
The transfer accuracy of digital and conventional full-arch impressions influenced by fixed orthodontic appliances: a reference aid-based in vitro study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. 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.
- Accuracy of Analog and Digital Full-Arch Mandibular Impressions: In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Advances in Digital Technologies in Dental Medicine: Enhancing Precision in Virtual Articulators.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the influence of fixed orthodontic appliances (FOAs) on the transfer accuracy of full-arch impressions by five intraoral scanners (IOSs): CS3600, Primescan, Trios 4, Medit i500, Emerald S, and one conventional alginate impression (CAI). MATERIALS AND
methodsTo compare the data with the actual model situation, an established reference aid-based method was applied. A test model with human teeth was used and modified for each testing group, resulting in five different settings: natural teeth (group A), metal brackets without/with wire (groups B/C), ceramic brackets without/with wire (groups D/E). A total of 300 (n = 12 × 5 × 5) scan datasets of IOSs were analyzed using a 3D software (GOM Inspect) and 60 (n = 12 × 5) plaster casts of CAI were measured with a coordinate measurement machine. The deviations between the reference aid and the impressions were determined.
resultsFor all groups with brackets (B to E), IOSs showed a higher transfer accuracy compared to CAI, even for long-span distances. However, some significant differences between the IOSs were observed (p < 0.05).
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, IOSs can be recommended for impressions with and without FOAs, even if CAI showed the smallest average deviations in settings without FOAs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: IOSs are widely used in orthodontics and the current study demonstrated that their use enables fast impression taking even in settings with fixed orthodontic appliances. In addition, for these settings, the transfer accuracy is higher than with conventional alginate impressions. Nevertheless, a re-investigation in a clinical setting should be performed to verify the current in vitro findings.
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.