ArticleBMC oral health2023
Scanning accuracy of an intraoral scanner according to different inlay preparation designs.
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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of toothbrushing mode and brushing load on the wear of anterior tooth-shaped restorative composites.Odontology · 2026Article
- Marginal adaptation of 3D-printed crowns: influence of preparation geometry and digitization workflow.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Digital impression accuracy for bone-level and tissue-level implants using scan bodies of different heights.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Impact of crown and inlay size variations on the accuracy of various digital impression techniques.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The effect of cavity depth on accuracy of intraoral scanners in intra-coronal restorations.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Accuracy of Digital Impressions for Veneer Restorations: A Narrative Review and Case Illustration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Enhancing Intraoral Scanning Accuracy: From the Influencing Factors to a Procedural Guideline.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Trueness comparison of various intraoral scanners and hybrid workflow for ceramic restoration.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2025Article
- Comparison of intraoral and extraoral scanners for volumetric assessment before and after caries removal by the ICDAS score: a quantitative analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Evaluating the accuracy of CEREC intraoral scanners for inlay restorations: impact of adjacent tooth materials.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Influence of impression method and shoulder design on the marginal adaptation of CAD/CAM nanoceramic resin onlay restorations.Heliyon · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe accuracy of intraoral scanning plays a crucial role in the workflow of computer-assisted design/computer-assisted manufacturing. However, data regarding scanning accuracy for inlay preparation designs are lacking. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of the depth of the occlusal cavity and width of the gingival floor of the proximal box on the trueness and precision of intraoral scans for inlay restoration.
methodsArtificial teeth were used in this study. Four types of preparations for mesio-occlusal inlay were performed on each #36 artificial tooth depending on two different depths of the occlusal cavity (1 mm and 2 mm) and widths of the gingival floor of the proximal box (1.5 mm and 2.5 mm). Artificial teeth were scanned 10 times each with Cerec Primescan AC, and another scan was performed subsequently with a laboratory scanner as a reference (n = 10). Standard tessellation language files were analyzed using a three-dimensional analysis software program. Experimental data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and the Bonferroni multiple comparison test.
resultsThe narrow shallow group had significantly higher deviation values for trueness than the wide deep group (p < 0.05). The wide deep group had the lowest average deviation value for trueness and there was no significant difference between the narrow deep and wide shallow groups (p > 0.05). For the mean maximum positive deviation, the wide groups had significantly lower values than the narrow groups (p < 0.05). Trueness was affected by both the width and depth(p < 0.05), whereas the mean maximum positive deviation was affected by the width (p < 0.05). The mean maximum negative deviation was affected by all three factors (p < 0.05). Precision was affected by the depth and the interaction between the depth of the occlusal cavity and width of the gingival floor (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe design of different inlay cavity configurations affected the accuracy of the digital intraoral scanner. The highest average deviation for trueness was observed in the narrow shallow group and the lowest in the wide deep group. With regard to precision, the narrow shallow group showed the lowest average deviation, and the narrow deep group showed highest value.
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.