ArticleJournal of dental sciences2023
Accuracy of intraoral scanning methods for maxillary Kennedy class I arch.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy assessment of removable partial denture frameworks fabricated by selective laser melting using two different workflows: A cross-over clinical study.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Optimizing Digital Impressions: A Review of Factors Affecting Intraoral Scanner Accuracy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Enhancing Intraoral Scanning Accuracy: From the Influencing Factors to a Procedural Guideline.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Accuracy comparison of scan segmental sequential ranges with two intraoral scanners for maxilla and mandible.Journal of dental sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: The optimal strategy for scanning removable partial dentures remains unknown. This study investigated scanning strategies for patients with a maxillary Kennedy Class I arch as well as the measurement deviations of three scanning strategies. Materials and methods: A standard maxilla model was positioned with a holder in a dental chair to simulate a natural patient position and posture. Standard Tessellation Language files for reference models were formatted with a desktop scanner, and model operation files were obtained with a TRIOS 3 Pod intraoral scanner and superimposed using Exocad computer-aided design software. The three scanning strategies evaluated in this study (Strategy M, T-R, and R-T) were used for nine scans each, and the resulting data were recorded. The deviation of the three strategies was statistically analyzed through one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc testing. Results: The trueness of Strategy M, T-R, and R-T was 52.6 ± 31.0, 54.9 ± 27.6, and 50.1 ± 22.3 μm, respectively. No statistically significant differences in trueness were detected among the three groups ( Conclusion: Trueness did not differ significantly among the three strategies. However, Strategy T-R is recommended for use with a TRIOS 3 Pod scanner because of its reduction of the seesaw effect and high stabilization of the RPD framework.
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.