ArticleJournal of dental sciences2023
Analysis of the impact of various finish line designs and occlusal morphologies on the accuracy of digital impressions.
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.
- Influence of margin level and finish line geometry on the trueness of digital scans.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2026Article
- Comparison of the overall fit of three-unit posterior fixed dental prostheses fabricated with laser sintering and conventional casting methods.Clinical oral investigations · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Recent advancements in dental technology has led clinicians to convert from traditional methods to digital workflows. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of various finish line designs and occlusal morphologies on the accuracy of digital impressions. Materials and methods: Six maxillary molar crown preparations were designed by using a digital sculpting software program. The samples differed in finish line design and occlusal surface morphology. Three different finish line designs (shoulder, chamfer, and shoulder with internal round angle) and two different occlusal morphologies (sharp and rounded) were used, giving six groups. Using three different intraoral scanners, each group was scanned and compared with a reference scan obtained from an industrial scanner. The accuracy of each scan was studied, and the data were statistically analyzed. Results: A total of 180 scans were acquired by utilizing three different intraoral scanners. The reference scan was compared with the scans from each group and overall differences (marginal, axial, and occlusal) were assessed. A crown preparation with a chamfer finish line showed the lowest marginal discrepancy of 13.2 ± 4.18 μm while preparation with a shoulder finish line reported the highest discrepancy of 34.8 ± 7.9 μm ( Conclusion: It has been suggested that chamfer finish line design and rounded occlusal anatomy may produce more accurate digital impression for single crown restorations.
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.