ArticleJournal of dental sciences2024
Accuracy of intraoral scanners in maxillary multiple restorations: An
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: The accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) plays a crucial role in the success of final restorations in digital workflows. Previous studies have shown that numerous factors affect the accuracy of IOSs. Most studies have evaluated the accuracy of IOS under one restoration condition. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of two IOSs with different data acquisition methods across multiple restorations. Materials and methods: A partially edentulous model with preparations were created and scanned using the laboratory scanner E4 as the reference model. Two IOSs, Trios 3 and Virtuo Vivo, were used in this study. Each scan was performed in same scanning strategy. Trueness and precision of each scan was compared by surface-matching software, and the data were statistically analyzed. Results: Trios 3 showed no significant difference in trueness of full arch, single crown, and edentulous area, except for 3-unit bridge area than Virtuo Vivo ( Conclusion: We found Trios 3 had better trueness in 3-unit bridge area compared to Virto Vivo, but there was no significant difference in the other preparation areas. While Virtuo Vivo showed better precision. Our results can provide insights for the selection of IOSs for various restorations in clinical practice. However, this is an
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.