ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Accuracy of Four Intra-Oral Scanners in Subgingival Vertical Preparation: An In Vitro 3-Dimensional Comparative Analysis.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Impact of four gingival retraction techniques on gingival tissue displacement and sulcus depth during digital impression procedures.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Comparison of subgingival finish line reproduction in intraoral scanning versus conventional impressions: a randomized crossover clinical study with/without gingival retraction.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2026Article
- Modified Provisional Technique: A New Prosthetic Approach for Stable Gingival Displacement to Make Impression.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Digital Impressions for Veneer Restorations: A Narrative Review and Case Illustration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Accuracy assessment of three-dimensional abutment tooth data construction using swept-source optical coherence tomography.PloS one · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the most critical aspects in intraoral impression is the detection of the finish line, particularly in the case of subgingival preparations. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy among four different Intra Oral Scanners (IOSs) in scanning a subgingival vertical margins preparation (VP). A reference maxillary typodont (MT) was fabricated with a VP for full crown on #16 and #21. The MT was scanned with a laboratory scanner (Aadva lab scanner, GC, Tokyo, Japan) to obtain a digital MT (dMT) in .stl format file. A group of 40 digital casts (dIOC) were obtained by scanning the MT 10 times with four different IOSs: Trios 3, 3Shape A/S; I700, Medit; Vivascan, Ivoclar; and Experimental IOS, GC. All the obtained dIOCs were imported into an inspection software program (Geomagic Control X; 3D SYSTEMS) to be superimposed to the dMT in order to calculate trueness. Therefore, in order to calculate precision, all the scans of the same scanner group were superimposed onto the cast that obtained the best result of trueness. The results were collected as the root mean square value (RMS) on the #16 and #21 abutment surfaces and on a marginal area positioned 1 mm above and below the gingival margin. A nonparametric analysis Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to compare the RMS values obtained in the different iOS groups for trueness and precision. Statistical significance was set at 0.05. For the trueness on the #16 abutment, the Vivascan reported statistically lower values, while on the #21 abutment, Vivascan (56.0 ± 12.1) and Experimental IOS, GC (59.2 ± 2.7) performed statistically better than the others. Regarding precision, Experimental IOS, GC were significantly better than the others on #16 (10.7 ± 2.1) and in the #21 area Experimental, GC, and Trios 3 performed statistically better(16.9 ± 13.8; 18.0 ± 2.7). At the subgingival marginal level for both #16 and #21, all the IOS reported reduced accuracy compared to clinical acceptance.
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.