Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39001343›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Comparative Analysis of Four Different Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study.

Lucian Toma Ciocan, Vlad Gabriel Vasilescu, Sabina-Ana Răuță, Mihaela Pantea, Silviu-Mirel Pițuru, Marina Imre

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lucian Toma CiocanDiscipline of Dental Prosthetics Technology, Faculty of Dentistry, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Dionisie Lupu Street, No. 37, District 2, 020021 Bucharest, Romania.
Vlad Gabriel VasilescuDiscipline of Dental Prosthetics Technology, Faculty of Dentistry, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Dionisie Lupu Street, No. 37, District 2, 020021 Bucharest, Romania.
Sabina-Ana RăuțăFaculty of Dentistry, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Dionisie Lupu Street, No. 37, District 2, 020021 Bucharest, Romania.
Mihaela PanteaDiscipline of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Dionisie Lupu Street, No. 37, District 2, 020021 Bucharest, Romania.ORCID 0000-0003-2402-8772
Silviu-Mirel PițuruDiscipline of Organization, Professional Legislation and Dental Office Management, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Dionisie Lupu Street, No. 37, District 2, 020021 Bucharest, Romania.
Marina ImreDiscipline of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Dionisie Lupu Street, No. 37, District 2, 020021 Bucharest, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: Intraoral scanners undergo rapid advancements in hardware and software, prompting frequent updates by manufacturers. (2) Aim: This study aimed to quantitatively assess the precision of full dental arch digital impressions obtained from four different intraoral scanners: Trios 5-3SHAPE, Copenhagen, Denmark, CEREC Primescan- Dentsply Sirona, New York, NY, USA, Planmeca Emerald S-Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland, and Medit i700-Medit Corp, Seoul, Republic of Korea. (3) Methods: A maxillary virtual dental model (digital master model) was created in accordance with ISO standard 20896-1. Subsequently, a 3D-printed model was obtained from the master model's STL file and scanned 15 times consecutively with each scanner. STL files were aligned with the master model's STL using Medit Link-Medit Design software v.3.1.0. The accuracy was evaluated by measuring deviations in micrometers between each scanner's scans and the master model. (4) Results: The study revealed variations in accuracy ranging from 23 to 32 µm across scans of the same dental arch, irrespective of the scanner used and scanning strategy employed. The anterior regions exhibited higher precision (Mean Absolute Deviation of 112 µm) compared to the posterior regions (Mean Absolute Deviation of 127 µm). Trios 5 demonstrated the smallest deviation (average 112 µm), indicating superior accuracy among the scanners tested. Emerald S and Medit i700 exhibited balanced performance (average 117 µm and 114 µm, respectively), while Primescan consistently displayed high deviation (average 127 µm). (5) Conclusions: Based on clinically accepted thresholds for accuracy in intraoral scanning, which are typically 200 µm for full arch scans, Trios 5 surpasses these benchmarks with its average deviation falling within the 200 µm range. Emerald S and Medit i700 also meet these standards, while Primescan, although showing high overall deviation, approaches the upper limit of clinical acceptability. Considering the limitations of an in vitro investigation, the findings demonstrate that each intraoral scanner under evaluation is capable of reliably and consistently capturing a full arch scan for dentate patients.

Indexed as

accuracydental archdigital impressionintraoral scannerISO assessmentprosthodontics

Identifiers

PMID39001343
PMCPMC11241578

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.