ArticleActa stomatologica Croatica2023
Accuracy Analysis of Extraoral 3D Scanning in the Development of Dental Prosthetic.
Article in Acta stomatologica Croatica, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The study has evaluated the accuracy (trueness and precision) of seven extraoral scanners when scanning two different types of jaws: simplified jaw with sharp edges and abutments and realistic jaw with natural teeth. The accuracies of extraoral scanners were compared, and their compliance with the required clinical accuracy levels was discussed. Material and methods: Ten scans were made with each scanner for both models. The comparison of the selected dental scanners relied on reference scans made for both models. Trueness, precision, and the distribution and value of laboratory scan points' deviations were assessed for each scanner across the models. Results: The trueness for the model of the simplified jaw with abutments ranged from 16.15 to 49.78 μm. The measured precision values for the same model ranged from 4.33 to 29.49 μm. For the model of the realistic jaw with natural teeth, the trueness results ranged from 11.32 to 24.55 μm, while the obtained precision values were between 2.29 and 18.06 μm. Conclusion: The revealed dissimilarities in the accuracies of scanners and their ranking when scanning different models lead to the conclusion that model selection is critical for the research design. All the scanners met the clinical accuracy requirements and are suitable for use in laboratories for scanning jaws with abutments and jaws with natural teeth. However, the accuracy values reported by the manufacturers of scanners are better than those obtained in this study. Furthermore, the results suggested that blue light scanners outperform white light and laser scanners.
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.