ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2023
Trueness and Precision of Eight Intraoral Scanners with Different Finishing Line Designs: A Comparative In Vitro Study.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2023. 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.
- Trueness and the amount of clinical adjustment for zirconia crowns fabricated by digital light processing at different build angles: a within-patient clinical study.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2026Article
- Article
- Accuracy of intraoral scans of the edentulous maxilla - an in vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Accuracy of Digital Impressions for Veneer Restorations: A Narrative Review and Case Illustration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Dimensional Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners in Recording Digital Impressions of Post and Core Preparations: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Passive fit and time efficiency for prefabricated versus conventionally constructed cobalt chromium CAD\CAM 3-unit implant supported frameworks in free end saddle models: a pilot invitro study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Marginal adaptation of different monolithic zirconia crowns with horizontal and vertical finish lines: A comparative in vitro study.Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects · 2023Article
- Effect of immediate dentin sealing on the fracture strength of indirect overlay restorations using different types of luting agents (A comparativeJournal of conservative dentistry and endodonticsArticle
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
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in terms of trueness and precision of eight intraoral scanners (IOS) and the effect of different finishing line designs on the IOS's accuracy. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree printed models of the maxillary arch with maxillary right first molar virtually prepared with chamfer, shoulder, and vertical preparation designs were used as master models in this study. Each model was scanned 30 times with each IOS: Medit i700, Planscan Emerald S, CEREC Primescan, TRIOS 3, CS3600, MEDIT i500, Heron 3Disc, and Cerec Omnicam. The trueness was measured by superimposition of the scanned dataset made with IOS and the scanned dataset made with a lab scanner (In Lab Medit T710) that was used as a reference and the deviation was measured and expressed as a color-coded map by the metrology program (Medit compare, version 2.3.5.892), while precision was measured by the superimposition of the scans of each IOS on each other.The data were analyzed statistically using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, one-way ANOVA test, and Bonferroni test at significance level of 0.05.
resultsThe tested IOS showed significant differences in trueness and precision. Medit i700 and CEREC Primescan recorded the highest precision with no significant difference between them, while Medit i700 recorded the highest trueness as compared to other IOS. Each IOS showed significant differences in trueness and precision with the three finishing line designs except CEREC Primescan and Heron 3 disc that showed no significant difference in trueness with the three finishing line designs and CS3600 that showed no significant difference in precision with the three finishing line designs.
conclusionA significant difference in accuracy was found among the tested IOS and the type of finishing line design had a significant effect on IOS's accuracy.
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.