ArticleJournal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects2024
Evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch impressions between three different intraoral scanners and conventional impressions: A prospective in vivo study.
Article in Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Comparative evaluation of lower incisor intrusion using conventional method and frog staging protocol in clear aligners: A three-dimensional finite element analysis.Journal of orthodontic science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This in-vivo study evaluated the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions obtained through different intraoral scanning technologies regarding trueness and efficiency against the standard alginate impressions. Methods: Alginate impressions were taken from 50 subjects, and the resulting stone casts were scanned using the Trios 3Shape desktop scanner. In-vivo scans were conducted on each participant using three intraoral scanners: Medit, CEREC Primescan, and 3Shape Trios. The scanned files were superimposed onto two software platforms: the 3Shape Orthoanalyser and Geomagic software. This superimposition was performed against the reference model to calculate 3D and 2D deviations, enabling efficiency comparisons between digital and traditional workflows based on work time in minutes. Measurements and comparisons were made in three planes: transverse, sagittal, and vertical dimensions for all the models and stone casts. Statistical analysis employed SPSS 23, with the significance level set at Results: Significant deviations were observed between the three intraoral scanners and the alginate impression, with molar and premolar areas showing greater imprecision across dental arches. Compared to the alginate technique, Medit i500 tended to reduce the transverse dimension in the areas mentioned above, while CEREC exhibited higher precision. Molar and premolar areas emerged as the regions with the greatest discrepancies, both in excess and deficiency, compared to the alginate impression. This difference in dimensions was, however, statistically insignificant overall. 3Shape Trios exhibited the shortest scan times, indicating higher efficiency. Among the intraoral scanners, Medit recorded the longest scanning duration. Conclusion: Accepting the null hypothesis, the scans obtained using all three scanners were comparable with statistically insignificant differences in the measurements. The three scanners differed in the total scan time taken, with the Medit scanner requiring the longest scan time and the 3Shape TRIOS 3 scanner demonstrating the shortest scan duration.
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.