ArticleClinical oral investigations2023
The precision of two alternative indirect workflows for digital model production: an illusion or a possibility?
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trueness and Precision of Intraoral Scanners for 3D-Printed Orthodontic Models with Attachments: An In Vitro Comparative Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Attitudes of dentists and patients towards the introduction of artificial intelligence in dentistry.Journal of medicine and life · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDespite the clear drive from both research and clinical dentistry toward digital transformation, there are limitations to implementing intra-oral scanning (IOS) into daily dental practice. This study aimed to compare the precision of digital models obtained from two alternative indirect workflows to direct IOS. MATERIAL AND
methodsTwo indirect digital workflows were evaluated in this study. In the IOS group (direct), IOS directly obtained digital impressions of participants' upper and lower dental arches, while in the Scan Impression (Scan Imp) group (indirect), a desktop scanner scanned silicone-based impressions of upper and lower whole arches that were taken with plastic trays. In the cone-beam computed tomography impression (CBCT Imp) group (indirect), a CBCT machine scanned the silicone-based impressions. Then, the precision of the entire arch and individual teeth for all digital impressions was virtually quantified. Following superimposition, differences between standard tessellation language (STL) files obtained from both-direct and indirect-methods were evaluated by color-mapping and measuring the surface distance between superimposed STL files. Furthermore, 18 linear measurements were taken from each digital model. ANOVA with repeated measures, Pearson coefficient, and intraclass correlation coefficient were used for intergroup comparisons.
resultsThe digital models obtained from the two indirect workflows differed from the IOS in some dental and intra-arch measurements but were considered clinically acceptable. Ranked against IOS, CBCT Imp models had greater precision, followed by Scan Imp.
conclusionDigital models obtained from two indirect, alternative workflows, desktop, and CBCT scanning of impression, have clinically acceptable accuracy and reliability of tooth size and intra-arch measurements, providing the use of proper methodologies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: There are some limitations to implementing IOS in daily clinical practice. However, several alternative digital model production techniques might provide an affordable solution. Although they may insignificantly differ in accuracy, all can be applied clinically.
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.