ArticleHeliyon2024
Accuracy of digital tooth preparations recorded using the plaster model scanning technique and two silicone impression scanning techniques.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing Digital Impressions: A Review of Factors Affecting Intraoral Scanner Accuracy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Accuracy of a Novel Desktop Micro-CT Scanner for Direct Digitization of Dental Impressions: A Comparative In Vitro Study.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the accuracy of digital tooth preparations recorded using the plaster model scanning technique and two silicone impression scanning techniques. Materials and methods: A maxillary resin model with incisor and first molar abutment preparations was used as the experimental model and scanned to serve as the gold standard. Three groups of digital models were generated, with 10 models in each group. Group 1 comprised 10 silicone impressions of the experimental model and were scanned using the 3Shape Trios3 intraoral scanner. Group 2 comprised 10 impressions covered with a scanning spray and scanned using the 3Shape D2000 extraoral scanner. Group 3 comprised plaster models made from the 10 impressions and scanned using the 3Shape D2000 extraoral scanner. Root mean square values were obtained by comparing the scanning data of each group with the gold standard using the Geomagic software. The one-way analysis of variance and paired student's Results: No statistically significant difference was observed in the root mean squares of the non-prepared teeth among the three groups (P = 0.12). The mean root mean squares of Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 0.11 ± 0.03 mm, 0.07 ± 0.03 mm, and 0.10 ± 0.05 mm, respectively. A statistical difference was observed in the incisor area among the three groups (P < 0.05), wherein Group 2 showed the lowest root mean square value (0.06 ± 0.02 mm). No significant difference was observed in the first molar area among the three groups (P = 0.142). Conclusions: Digital tooth preparations models obtained from silicone impressions by extraoral scanning showed similar accuracy to intraoral scanning and plaster model scanning. This indicates that the clinical workflow of taking silicone impressions and scanning with an extraoral scanner is an acceptable and convenient choice.
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.