ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Comparison of intraoral and extraoral scanners for volumetric assessment before and after caries removal by the ICDAS score: a quantitative analysis.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAimed to compare the volumetric calculations (VC) of intra-and-extraoral scanners on carious teeth before/after caries removal. MATERIALS AND
methods120 extracted human molars with ICDAS scores of 3, 4, and 5 were included. The teeth were scanned using an extraoral scanner (Ineos-X5, Dentsply Sirona) and three intraoral scanners (IOS) (iTero Element-5D, Align Technology; Primescan, Dentsply Sirona; Trios 4, 3Shape) before-and-after caries removal (CR). Eight Standard Tessellation Language (STL) data of each tooth sample were overlapped in Meshmixer (Autodesk) software for VC. Shapiro-Wilk, Paired Two-Sample T-test, repeated analysis of variance test statistics, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used (p < 0.05).
resultsIn initial VC, a significant difference observed between Ineos-X5 and iTero Element-5D (p < 0.001) and Ineos-X5 and Primescan (p < 0.001), regardless of the ICDAS score. No significant difference observed after CR between Ineos-X5 and iTero Element-5D (p = 0.917), Ineos-X5 and Primescan (p = 0.936), and Ineos-X5 and Trios 4 (p = 0.727) respectively. There was also no difference between the three IOS after CR (p ≥ 0.05), whereas the iTero Element-5D scanner significantly calculated less volume than Primescan and Trios-4 initially (p = 0.003). Maximum ICC was observed between the Ineos-X5 and Primescan in the ICDAS 5 score, before CR (ICC = 1, p < 0.001) and triple comparisons of iTero Element-5D, Primescan, and Trios-4 (ICC = 1, p < 0.001).
conclusionCarious and irregular surfaces might affect the data collection of IOS. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Intra-and-extraoral data may present negligible differences in the volumetric calculation, depending on the caries status and anatomical properties. These differences and factors may be important for future artificial intelligence networks that simulate the aftermath of caries removal. The IOSs tested in the current study can successfully collect data from irregular, deep and shallow cavities after caries removal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39495394What 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.