ArticleHeliyon2023
Comparison of the measurement error of optical impressions obtained with four intraoral and one extra-oral dental scanners of post and core preparations.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analyzing the influence of scanning speeds and distances on digital intraoral scans: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Evidence-based dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Digitized Physical Impressions Optimize Apical Adaptation of Bio-Root Inlays for Apexification: A Comparison of Four Impression Techniques.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Effect of Different Impression and Fabrication Techniques on the Precision of Custom Metal Posts: Fully Digital, Semi-Digital, and Conventional.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparative Analysis of CAD-CAM Workflow Variations on the Marginal and Internal Gaps and Fatigue Behavior of Ceramic and Resin Composite Dental Crowns.European journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- The trueness of CAD-CAM custom-milled post-and-cores: a comparison of three materials and two milling systems.European oral research · 2025Article
- In vitro assessment of the accuracy of two intra-oral scanners for post space scanning in a fully digital workflow.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- A Digital Approach for a Complete Rehabilitation with Fixed and Removable Prostheses: A Technical Procedure.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Dimensional Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners in Recording Digital Impressions of Post and Core Preparations: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The Comparison of Accuracy of Post Space Digital Impressions Made by Three Different Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Internal Fit in Custom-Made Posts and Cores Fabricated with Fully Digital Versus Conventional Techniques.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- Accuracy of 3 Intraoral Scanners in Recording Impressions for Full Arch Dental Implant-Supported Prosthesis: An In Vitro Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Article
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Statement of problem: Innovations in intraoral scanner (IOS) technology are opening up ever more indications for computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD-CAM). The manufacturers claim that the latest generations of scanners allow the digitizing of root canal preparations. However, there is a lack of studies evaluating the quality of the optical impressions made for this type of treatment. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the measurement error of 4 IOSs and a laboratory scanner used for the digitizing of root canal preparations and to highlight the effect of the presence or absence of adjacent teeth on the quality of the digital model. Material and methods: Two models: one presenting adjacent teeth, one without adjacent teeth, both presenting a 10 mm deep nominal conical pit mimicking a root canal preparation were fabricated. Each model was scanned 10 times with a laboratory scanner (E3) and 4 intraoral scanners (Primescan, Omnicam, TRIOS 4, and Medit i700). The digital models were then exported as standard tessellation language (STL) files and analyzed to evaluate the mean measurement error of the digitizing of the root preparation at three different depths: 0-3 mm, 3-6 mm, and 6-9 mm. Significant differences were assessed with a 1-way ANOVA test and the pairwise comparison between scanners was done by Tukey's multiple comparison test. Results: Statistical differences were found between scanners ( Conclusions: Significant differences were found among the dental scanners used for digitizing root canal preparations. Optical impressions with modern intraoral scanners seem to be an adapted method of registration of root canal preparation for post-and-copings of post-and-cores fabrication.
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.