ArticleJournal of dental sciences2024
Trueness of intraoral scanning for different tooth-size arch-length deficiencies.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2024. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing Digital Impressions: A Review of Factors Affecting Intraoral Scanner Accuracy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Mapping dental biofilms: from plaque index through planimetry to volumetric analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- 3D Method for the Volumetric Evaluation and Visualisation of Dental Biofilms: A Proof-of-Principle Study.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2025Article
- Accuracy of intraoral scanners in maxillary multiple restorations: AnJournal of dental sciences · 2024Article
- Trueness comparison of intraoral scans for diverse arch lengths in pediatric dental models.Journal of dental sciences · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: As science and technology continue to advance, the utilization of intraoral scanners (IOSs) has become increasingly popular in the orthodontic workflow. The aim of this study was to discuss whether the degree of crowded arches affects scan accuracy. Materials and methods: Three different crowding levels of dental models (model MI: mild, model MO: moderate, and model SE: severe) were scanned using both an IOS and desktop scanner. Stereolithographic files were obtained and superimposed via CAD software to calculate differences between each measuring point of a model and the farthest corresponding point. The deviations from three models were compared with statistical analysis. Results: The trueness of different crowding arches showed that the deviation value of model SE was the maximum, followed by model MI, and model MO in the maxillary arch. In the mandibular arch, the order of the deviation from greatest to least was firstly model SE, then model MO, and model MI. Significant differences were observed among the maxillary models ( Conclusion: The trueness of the three crowded arches is in the clinically acceptable range. The degree of crowding increases, the trueness of scanning at each position decreases. In the maxillary arch, more severe crowding corresponds to higher deviations. In the mandible, the degree of crowding is not explicitly related to the maximum deviation; therefore, the clinician should notice the deviation when using IOSs for crowding cases.
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.