ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2024
Accuracy of maxillary full-arch digital impressions of tooth and implant models made by two intraoral scanners.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of four gingival retraction techniques on gingival tissue displacement and sulcus depth during digital impression procedures.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Implant‑position reproducibility of wired and wireless intraoral scanners and the effects of Wi‑Fi distance and upload speed: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Accuracy of maxillary full-arch digital impressions of tooth and implant models made by two intraoral scanners.Clinical and experimental dental research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesLimited studies are available on the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for full-arch implant and tooth models. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of maxillary full-arch digital impressions of tooth and implant models made by two IOSs. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis in vitro, experimental study was conducted on two maxillary dentiform models: one with six prepared natural teeth and the other with six implants at the site of canine, first premolar, and first molar teeth, bilaterally. A highly accurate industrial scanner was used for actual measurements on the models that served as the reference scan. TS (Trios3) and CO (CEREC Omnicam) IOSs were then used to scan each model 10 times according to the manufacturer's instructions. All scans were saved in STL format. The GOM Inspect software was used according to the best-fit algorithm to compare the accuracy of measurements in the groups with the reference scan. The trueness and precision were calculated. Statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS by one-way analysis of variance and t-test (α = .05).
resultsTS showed a significantly higher trueness than CO for both tooth and implant models (p < .05). TS also revealed significantly higher precision than CO for the tooth model; however, the difference in precision for the implant model was not significant between the two IOSs (p > .05).
conclusionsTS showed higher accuracy than CO in both tooth and implant models.
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.