Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38033456›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2023

Influence of Intraoral Scanners, Operators, and Data Processing on Dimensional Accuracy of Dental Casts for Unsupervised Clinical Machine Learning: An In Vitro Comparative Study.

Taseef Hasan Farook, Saif Ahmed, Jamal Giri, Farah Rashid, Toby Hughes, James Dudley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Transformer-based models in dentistry: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Taseef Hasan FarookAdelaide Dental School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5905-1572
Saif AhmedDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, North South University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Jamal GiriAdelaide Dental School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6824-607X
Farah RashidAdelaide Dental School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2017-2454
Toby HughesAdelaide Dental School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8668-7744
James DudleyAdelaide Dental School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2004-0531

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study assessed the impact of intraoral scanner type, operator, and data augmentation on the dimensional accuracy of in vitro dental cast digital scans. It also evaluated the validation accuracy of an unsupervised machine-learning model trained with these scans. Methods: Twenty-two dental casts were scanned using two handheld intraoral scanners and one laboratory scanner, resulting in 110 3D cast scans across five independent groups. The scans underwent uniform augmentation and were validated using Hausdorff's distance (HD) and root mean squared error (RMSE), with the laboratory scanner as reference. A 3-factor analysis of variance examined interactions between scanners, operators, and augmentation methods. Scans were divided into training and validation sets and processed through a pretrained 3D visual transformer, and validation accuracy was assessed for each of the five groups. Results: No significant differences in HD and RMSE were found across handheld scanners and operators. However, significant changes in RMSE were observed between native and augmented scans with no specific interaction between scanner or operator. The 3D visual transformer achieved 96.2% validation accuracy for differentiating upper and lower scans in the augmented dataset. Native scans lacked volumetric depth, preventing their use for deep learning. Conclusion: Scanner, operator, and processing method did not significantly affect the dimensional accuracy of 3D scans for unsupervised deep learning. However, data augmentation was crucial for processing intraoral scans in deep learning algorithms, introducing structural differences in the 3D scans.

Identifiers

PMID38033456
PMCPMC10686707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.