ArticleScientific reports2023
Prediction of learning curves of wired and wireless intraoral scanners.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
This clinical study aimed to predict the learning curve of wireless and wired intraoral scanners (IOSs) and to compare the reduction patterns of working time. Overall, 14 participants were enrolled in the study. The intraoral scanning procedure was repeated four times, each using wireless and wired IOSs (i700; MEDIT). The work time from the first to the 600th iterations was predicted using the Wright model. Regarding statistical analysis, the Mann-Whitney U-test was performed for comparison between wireless and wired IOSs and between groups with and without an IOS usage experience, and the Friedman test was performed to evaluate the time reduction (α = 0.05). There was a significant difference between wireless and wired IOSs in the first (P = 0.008) and the third (P = 0.035) iterations. Moreover, the time for 600 iterations was statistically significantly different between wireless and wired IOSs (P < 0.05); however, there was no significant difference after the sixth iteration (e.g., seventh iteration: P = 0.062). In wireless IOS, no significant difference was found between participants with and without an IOS usage experience after the 34th iteration (P = 0.053). The difference in the learning effect between wireless and wired IOSs can be overcome by initial learning; however, an IOS usage experience can affect the learning time of wireless IOSs.
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.