ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Comparative evaluation of intraoral scanners and a spectrophotometer for percent correct shade identification in clinical dentistry.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of Digital Photography and Intraoral Scanning for Tooth Shade Selection in Digital Prosthodontics: A Comparative Clinical Study Using Spectrophotometry as Reference.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- A Multidimensional Analysis of Shade Selection Difficulty for Indirect Restorations Among Dental Students and Professionals.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Are Conventional Impressions Obsolete? A Narrative Review on the Applicability of Intraoral Scanners.Australian dental journal · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe study aimed to assess the percent correct shade identification of four intraoral scanners (IOS) and a spectrophotometer, focusing on how reliably each device selects the correct tooth shade compared to a visual observer's selection. The research question addresses how much clinicians can trust the device-selected shade without visual verification. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixteen participants with natural, unrestored teeth were included. The teeth evaluated were tooth 21 (left maxillary central incisor), tooth 23 (left maxillary canine), and tooth 26 (first left maxillary molar). Tooth color was measured using four IOS devices and the Vita Easyshade V in three regions: incisal, middle, and cervical. The nearest 3D Master shade selected by each device was compared to the visual observer's selection. The percent exact match, acceptable match (> 1.2, ≤ 2.7 ∆E
resultsThe overall clinical pass rate was highest for Carestream (78.2%), followed by Easyshade (63.5%), Primescan (51.2%), Trios (39.5%), and Medit (31.3%). Carestream also recorded the highest rate of mismatch type A (47.7%). Significant differences between devices were observed for all categories (p < 0.05).
conclusionsCarestream demonstrated the highest overall clinical pass rate, while Medit exhibited the lowest. The study highlights the variability between devices in shade matching performance. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study highlights the importance of considering device performance when relying on IOS or spectrophotometers for shade selection without visual assessment, as the reliability can vary significantly across devices.
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.