ArticleJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2022
Effect of preparation type on the accuracy of different intraoral scanners: An in vitro study at different levels of accuracy evaluation.
Article in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 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.
- Enhancing Intraoral Scanning Accuracy: From the Influencing Factors to a Procedural Guideline.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- A Comprehensive Review of Factors That Influence the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Effect of preparation type on the accuracy of different intraoral scanners: An in vitro study at different levels of accuracy evaluation.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEvaluation of the effect of preparation type (inlay, onlay, and crown) on the accuracy of different intraoral scanning (IOS) systems at the preparation and arch segment levels. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree molars were prepared for inlay, onlay, and crown. Each preparation was scanned 10 times by CEREC Omnicam, Trios 3 (TS), and Medit i500 scanners. Each image was trimmed twice. The first trimming produced a preparation image (PI), and the second trimming extracted a segment image (SI) that involved the preparation with the adjacent teeth. Trueness and precision were calculated at the PI and SI levels.
resultsAt the PI level, all IOS systems had similar trueness pattern for all preparations, where the inlay had the best trueness followed by the crown and onlay. At the SI level, the different preparations showed similar trueness. The precision did not show a clear pattern of superiority for any preparation. The TS was significantly more precise than other IOS systems at the PI and SI levels, for every preparation. The proximal areas suffered from the greatest errors, regardless of preparation type.
conclusionsThe preparation type influenced PI trueness, and the IOS system affected PI and SI precisions. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The smaller and less complex preparations have greater IOS accuracy than larger and more complex preparations. As the proximal areas are more affected regardless of the preparation, a more accessible proximal area for scanning is desirable.
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.