ArticleDentistry journal2024
An Evaluation of the Accuracy of Digital Models-An In Vitro Study.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Accuracy of Digital Impressions for Veneer Restorations: A Narrative Review and Case Illustration.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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraoral scanning technology has opened new perspectives in dental practice, and combined with CAD/CAM technology, contributes significantly to fabricating high-quality prosthetic restorations. Our in vitro study aims to assess the accuracy of digital models obtained from one laboratory and two less commonly used intraoral scanners by conducting 3D measurements on the digital models obtained.
methodsAn articulated simulator cast was used. Forty-eight scans were performed before and after tooth preparation with each scanner. The Zeiss Inspect software (Version: 2023.3.0.969) was used for measurements in sagittal and transversal planes. The obtained values were compared to reference values resulting from manual measurements.
resultsDigital impressions provided discrepancies compared to the reference model. The lowest differences at the A2-L2 (the diagonal dimension of the models from the distal fossa of the second right maxillary molar and the maximum oral convexity of the artificial gingiva at the first left premolar) and the A1-B1 (transversal dimension of the model in the posterior area, from the right second molar's occlusal central fossa to the left second molar central fossa) distances were obtained for the upper models, and at the a1-b1 distance for all the lower models, except the non-prepared models scanned with the intraoral scanners (the discrepancies were not statistically significant). The discrepancies increased with the distance from the starting point of the scan.
conclusionThe number and position of prepared teeth can influence the accuracy of the scans. Distortions can appear in the case of multiple preparations. The scanning protocol and calibration must be optimized for the highest accuracy. Furthermore, in vivo studies are necessary to evaluate the clinical applicability of these findings.
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.