ArticleKorean journal of orthodontics2023
A novel method for testing accuracy of bite registration using intraoral scanners.
Article in Korean journal of orthodontics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consistency of Intraoral-Scanner-Derived Occlusal Contact Distance Maps Between Centric Relation and Maximal Intercuspation.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Influence of intraoral scan extension on the accuracy of impressions with 3d-printed identical single tooth preparations.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Instantaneous center of rotation, the first step to build up the digital laboratory of complex motions.PloS one · 2025Article
- Aspects of Occlusal Recordings Performed with the T-Scan System and with the Medit Intraoral Scanner.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of efficacy of digital or virtual bite registration over conventional techniques- A systematic review.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The evidence on the accuracy of bite registration using intraoral scanners is sparse. This study aimed to develop a new method for evaluating bite registration accuracy using intraoral scanners. Methods: Two different types of models were used; 10 stone models and 10 with acrylic resin teeth. A triangular frame with cylindrical posts at each apex (one anterior and two posteriors) was digitally designed and manufactured using three-dimensional (3D) printing. Such a structure was fitted in the lingual space of each maxillary and mandibular model so that, in occlusion, the posts would contact their opposing counterparts, enforcing a small interocclusal gap between the two arches. This ensured no tooth interference and full contact between opposing posts. Bite registration accuracy was evaluated by measuring the distance between opposing posts, with small values indicating high-accuracy. Three intraoral scanners were used: Medit i500, Primescan, and Trios 4. Viewbox software was used to measure the distance between opposing posts and compute roll and pitch. Results: The average maximum error in interocclusal registration exceeded 50 μm. Roll and pitch orientation errors ranged above 0.1 degrees, implying an additional interocclusal error of around 40 μm or more. The models with acrylic teeth exhibited higher errors. Conclusions: A method that avoids the need for reference hardware and the imprecision of locating reference points on tooth surfaces, and offers simplicity in the assessment of bite registration with an intraoral scanner, was developed. These results suggest that intraoral scanners may exhibit clinically significant errors in reproducing the interocclusal relationships.
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.