ArticleJournal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists2025
Accuracy of digital duplication scanning methods for complete dentures.
Article in Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 2025. 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.
- Trueness of artificial intelligence-based, manual, and global thresholding segmentation protocols for human mandibles.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2025Article
- Comparison of trueness, time, and number of images among different denture digitization protocols.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2025Article
- A comprehensive narrative review exploring the current landscape of digital complete denture technology and advancements.Heliyon · 2025Review
- Accuracy of digital duplication scanning methods for complete dentures.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2025Article
- Effect of Duplication Techniques on the Fitting Accuracy of CAD-CAM Milled, 3D-Printed, and Injection-Molded Mandibular Complete Denture Bases.Dentistry journal · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the accuracy of four digital scanning methods in duplicating a complete denture. MATERIAL AND
methodsFour scanning methods were used: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), Straumann desktop scanner (DS), Trios intraoral scanner (TIO), and Virtuo Vivo intraoral scanner (VVIO). Each method was used to duplicate all the surfaces of a printed complete denture. The denture was scanned 10 times in each group. The trueness (in root mean square, RMS) and precision (in standard deviation, SD) were calculated by comparing the combined dentition, denture extension, and intaglio surfaces with the reference file. One-way analysis of variance and F-tests were used to test statistical differences (α = 0.05).
resultsFor the scanning accuracy of the whole denture, CBCT showed the highest RMS (0.249 ± 0.020 mm) and lowest trueness than DS (0.124 ± 0.014 mm p < 0.001), TIO (0.131 ± 0.006 mm p < 0.001), and VVIO (0.227 ± 0.020 mm p = 0.017), while DS and TIO showed smaller RMS than VVIO (p < 0.001). For the trueness of dentition, denture extension, and intaglio surfaces, CBCT also showed the highest mean RMS and lowest trueness among all groups (p < 0.001). DS and TIO had smaller mean RMS and higher trueness among all groups in all surfaces (p < 0.001, except VVIO in intaglio surface, p > 0.05). TIO had significantly lower within-group variability of RMS and highest precision compared to DS (p = 0.013), CBCT (p = 0.001), and VVIO (p < 0.001) in the combined surface. For dentition and denture extension surfaces, TIO showed similar within-group variability of RMS with the DS group (p > 0.05) and lower than CBCT and VVIO (p < 0.001).
conclusionThe 7 Series desktop scanner and Trios 4 intraoral scanner can duplicate dentures in higher trueness than CBCT and the Virtuo Vivo intraoral scanner. The Trios 4 intraoral scanner was more precise in the combined surfaces than other scanning methods, while the 7 Series desktop scanner and Trios 4 intraoral scanner were more precise in the denture extension surface.
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.