ArticleBMC oral health2024
Evaluating the accuracy of CEREC intraoral scanners for inlay restorations: impact of adjacent tooth materials.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 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
- Influence of adjacent restorative material and distance on the accuracy of inlay cavity impressions with intraoral scanner: an in vitro study.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Digital Impressions for Veneer Restorations: A Narrative Review and Case Illustration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Enhancing Intraoral Scanning Accuracy: From the Influencing Factors to a Procedural Guideline.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe accuracy of intraoral scanning is critical for computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing workflows in dentistry. However, data regarding the scanning accuracy of various adjacent restorative materials and intraoral scanners are lacking. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of adjacent restorative material type and CEREC's intraoral scanners on the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for inlay cavities.
methodsThe artificial tooth was prepared with an occlusal cavity depth of 2 mm, a proximal box width at the gingival floor of 1.5 mm, and an equi-gingival margin extended disto-occlusally at the transition line angle on both the lingual and buccal sides for an inlay restoration. The adjacent teeth were veneered with crowns made of gold and zirconia, and an artificial tooth (resin) was utilized as the control group. The inlay cavity and adjacent teeth (Gold, Zirconia, and resin) were scanned 10 times using Chairside Economical Restoration of Esthetic Ceramics (CEREC) Primescan (PS), Omnicam (OC), and Bluecam (BC). A reference scan was obtained using a laboratory scanner (3-shape E3). Scanning was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions, including powder application for the BC group. Standard tesselation language files were analyzed using a three-dimensional analysis software program. Experimental data were analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance and the Tukey's post-hoc comparison test.
resultsThe restorative materials of the adjacent teeth significantly affected the accuracy of the intraoral digital impressions (p < .05). The zirconia group exhibited the highest trueness deviation, followed by the resin and gold groups, with each demonstrating a statistically significant difference (p < .05). The resin group demonstrated the highest maximum positive deviation and deviation in precision. Gold exhibited the lowest average deviation value for trueness compared with those of the other adjacent restorative materials. Intraoral scanner type significantly influenced the trueness and precision of the scan data (p < .05). The average deviation of trueness according to the intraoral scanner type increased in the following order: BC > PS > OC. The average deviation in precision increased in the following order: PS>OC>BC (p < .05).
conclusionThe restorative materials of the adjacent tooth and the type of intraoral scanner affect the accuracy of the intraoral digital impression. The trueness of the digital images of the BC group, obtained by spraying the powder, was comparable to that of the PS group. Among the adjacent restorative materials, zirconia exhibited the lowest trueness. In contrast, PS demonstrated the highest precision among the intraoral scanners, while resin displayed the lowest precision among the adjacent restorative materials.
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.