ArticleJournal of dental sciences2023
A double blinded trial to compare the patient satisfaction and crown accuracy of two different intraoral scanners for the fabrication of monolithic lithium disilicate single crowns.
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 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of Digital Impressions for Veneer Restorations: A Narrative Review and Case Illustration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Virtual Dental Articulation Using Computed Tomography Data and Motion Tracking.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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
Background/Purpose: The digital impression is a promising technique in prosthodontic treatment. However, the influencing factors of patient comfort is lacking, and the evidence of crown quality is mostly based on in vitro studies. The purpose of this double-blinded clinical trial was to compare the patient satisfaction and crown accuracy of two different intraoral scanners (IOSs) for the fabrication of all-ceramic single crowns (SCs). Materials and methods: Participants in need of posterior tooth-supported SCs were enrolled. Each patient received quadrant scan by both the Metal Industries Research and Development Centre (MIRDC) IOS and Carestream CS3500 in a random sequence. After scanning, participants had to fill in a 6-item perception questionnaire that based on 5-point Likert scale for two IOSs. Both data were sent to a dental laboratory to fabricate the monolithic lithium disilicate SCs. The crown accuracy including marginal fit, proximal contact, occlusal contact, and general satisfaction were accessed based on 5-point scale. Results: A total of 15 participants with 40 crowns (20 SCs in each group) were investigated. Regarding to patient satisfaction, there was no statistically significant difference in total score between MIRDC and Carestream IOSs (23.6 ± 3.79 vs 23.1 ± 4.28, Conclusion: Both MIRDC and Carestream IOSs can provide good patient satisfaction during intraoral scanning. The Carestream IOS obtains better accuracy for the fabrication of all-ceramic SCs.
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.