Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36747555›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Comparison of the measurement error of optical impressions obtained with four intraoral and one extra-oral dental scanners of post and core preparations.

Lucien Dupagne, Bernardin Mawussi, Laurent Tapie, Nicolas Lebon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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 · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lucien DupagneProsthodontic Department, Unité de Recherche Biomatériaux Innovants et Interfaces, Université Paris Cité, Montrouge, France.
Bernardin MawussiUniversité Sorbonne Paris Nord, Unité de Recherche Biomatériaux Innovants et Interfaces, Bobigny, France.
Laurent TapieEPF Ecole d'ingénieurs, Unité de Recherche Biomatériaux Innovants et Interfaces, Cachan, France.
Nicolas LebonUniversité Sorbonne Paris Nord, Unité de Recherche Biomatériaux Innovants et Interfaces, Bobigny, France.
Université Paris Cité · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CAD-CAMCAD-CAM, Computer aided design - Computer aided manufacturingIntraoral scannerIOS, intraoral scannerRoot canal preparation

Identifiers

PMID36747555
PMCPMC9898050
OpenAlexW4317936967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.