ArticleBMC oral health2023
Comparison of the learning curve of intraoral scanning with two different intraoral scanners based on scanning time.
Article in BMC oral health, 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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Defining the influence of digitalization on the future of dentistry through an educational handbook for Computer Aided Design tool training.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Patient acceptance, time efficiency, and inter-operator agreement in intra-oral scanning with fluorescence technology for caries detection.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Digital Technologies in Implantology: A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Digitally-Driven Surgical Guide for Alveoloplasty Prior to Immediate Denture Placement.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Three-Dimensionally Printed Splints in Dentistry: A Comprehensive Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Digital integration in dental education: A novel self-directed learning model using intraoral scanners for tooth preparation training.Journal of dental sciences · 2025Article
- Direct vs. Indirect Digital Implant Impressions: A Time and Cost Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- The effect of generation change on the accuracy of full arch digital impressions.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Text mining analysis of scientific literature on digital intraoral scanners in dentistry: Bibliometric analysis.Digital healthArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe appearance of intraoral scanners (IOSs) in dental offices was an important milestones for the digital innovations in dentistry. Knowing the learning curve for intraoral scanning is crucial, because it can serve as a guideline for clinicians before buying a new IOS. The aim of the present in vivo study was to determine the learning curve required by dental students for intraoral scanning with the 3Shape Trios 4 IOS and the CEREC Primescan IOS, based on scanning time.
methodsA total of 20 dental students with no previous experience in intraoral scanning participated in the present study. 10 students scanned with Trios 4® IOS (TRI) and 10 students took digital impressions with Primescan® IOS (CER). Every student created 15 digital impressions from patients. Prior to taking the impressions, theoretical and practical education was provided. The total scanning time included the upper and lower arches as well as bite registration, for which average values were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using the Stata package with a mixed-effects generalized least squares regression models.
resultsThe average total scanning times were the following: TRI - 205 s for the 1st impression, 133.6 s for the 15th, CER - 289.8 s for the 1st impression, 147 s for the 15th. The model-based estimate of the difference between the two in case of TRI was 57.5 s, and in CER was 144.2 s which is a highly significant improvement in both cases (P < 0.0001). The slope of the scanning time vs. learning phase curve gradually approached flatness, and maintained a plateau: TRI - from the 11th measurement and CER - from the 14th measurement onward.
conclusionsGiven the limitations of the present study, we found difference between the learning curve of scanner types which are operate various principle of imaging. In case of the TRI fewer digital impressions (11 repeating) were sufficient to reach the average scanning time of an experienced user than using CER (14 repeating).
trial registrationThe permission for this study was given by the University Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE RKEB number: 184/2022).
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.