ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2024
Evaluation of the effect of different core substrates on the accuracy of 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.
- Influence of the color of 3D-printed scan aids on the trueness of complete arch digital scans.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026Article
- Material-dependent trueness of intraoral scanners: A comparative analysis of three scanning technologies for different crowns - An in vitro study.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the effect of different core substrates on the accuracy of 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to determine if different types of core substrates have any effect on the trueness and precision of digital intraoral impressions. MATERIAL AND
methodsA customized typodont with four similar cores of natural dentine, composite, metal (Ni-Cr), and zirconia in the position of premolars was fabricated. The study model was scanned five times with two types of intraoral scanners (Carestream 3600 and 3Shape Trios 3), and a reference standard scan was obtained using a laboratory scanner (3shape D1000). A metrology software (Geomagic X) was used to align the data of experimental scans and the reference scan to determine deviation values (trueness). Precision values were calculated with random superimposition in each intraoral scanner group. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare differences between different substrates, and the Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the average values between the two scanners.
resultsTrios 3 was found to be significantly truer and more precise than Carestream 3600 (p value = .005, <0.001). There were no significant differences in the trueness of different substrates when they were scanned by Trios 3, while different materials showed significantly different trueness values in the Carestream 3600 group (p value = .003). Dentin showed the best trueness, and zirconia performed worse than other substrates. Regarding the precision of the scanners, neither of the scanners was affected by the type of scanning substrate.
conclusionFor Carestream 3600, substrate type did impact the trueness of intraoral scans, with dentin and zirconia showing the highest and lowest accuracy, respectively, while Trios 3 was similarly accurate across all substrates. Trios 3 had both higher trueness and precision than Carestream 3600.
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.