ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2024
The effect of different scanning protocols on precision and trueness of intraoral scanning: A pilot trial.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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.
- Influence of arch form on the accuracy of digital workflow in all-on-four implant rehabilitation cases (an in vitro study).BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Influence of Scan Body Geometry, Implant Angulation, and Interimplant Distance on the Accuracy of Maxillary Full-Arch Digital Implant Scans: An In Vitro Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Impact of dentition alignment, scanning strategy and operator experience on the accuracy and time of intraoral scanning: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Mapping Error Propagation in Intraoral Scanning Using Reason's Swiss-Cheese Model: An In Vitro Study of Precision Under Repeatability Conditions.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to investigate how different scanning protocols affect the accuracy (trueness and precision) of intraoral scanning of complete arches with implant cylinders. Material and Methods: A master model was designed with five cylinders. One scanner, TRIOS2 (3shape), was used to scan the model with four different scan protocols: ROCK (wavelike scanning in a pendulum movement), ZIGZAG (wavelike scanning technique), OBP (occlusal, buccal, and palatal), and OWBP (occlusal, wiggling, buccal, and palatal). A total of 30 scans were performed using each of the four protocols. The master model was digitized with an industrial ISO-certified ATOS scanner. GOM inspect software was used to compare the scans to the master model and evaluate any deviation between the scan protocols and the master model. The data was analyzed using the One Sample t-test ( Results: The precision (standard deviation) ranged from 23-83μm for protocol ROCK, 22-147μm for ZIGZAG, 21-170μm for OBP, and 23-116μm for OWBP. The trueness (mean deviation from master model) was 5-41μm for ROCK, 7-97μm for ZIGZAG, -21-29μm for OBP, and 1-24μm for OWBP. All protocols showed statistically significant differences to the master model in multiple distances, except OWBP, which had a single significant difference in comparison to the master model. Conclusions: Protocol OWBP has a higher trueness than other tested protocols. All tested protocols have higher trueness and precision when scanning smaller distances than inter-arch measurement. Clinical significance;The trueness and precision of intraoral scanning is generally better in smaller spans due to less deviation. The protocol OWBP, that is recommended by the manufacturer, has the least deviating trueness in comparison to the master model.
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.