ArticleJournal of dental sciences2024
Trueness comparison of intraoral scans for diverse arch lengths in pediatric dental models.
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: Spacing between teeth is a common trait across different stages of dentition. With the tide of the digital impression, the scanning trueness of the intraoral scanner (IOS) is a hot subject. This study aimed to determine the correlation between the level of the spaced dentition and trueness of the intraoral scanning. Materials and methods: Four arch lengths of deciduous tooth models (spacing Model 1, Model 2, Model 3, Model 4 = 0, 1, 2, 3 mm; maxillary arch length = 73.268, 81.922, 90.776, 97.698 mm; mandibular arch length = 69.092, 76.160, 86.228, 94.344 mm) were designed to measure trueness via an IOS. Statistical analysis included one-way analysis of variance followed by post hoc Tukey tests for comparisons of the data. Results: The trueness varied across different levels of spacing, with the highest deviation observed between intraoral and desktop scans in Model 3, followed by Model 4, Model 2, and Model 1 in the maxillary arch. In the mandibular arch, the sequence of deviation from highest to lowest was Model 4, Model 3, Model 1, and Model 2. Significant differences were observed among these models in both the maxilla and mandible ( Conclusion: In both the maxilla (2 mm spacing, arch length ≥81.922 mm) and mandible (3 mm spacing, arch length ≥86.228 mm), scanning accuracy decreases with longer arch lengths. This indicates that as arch length increases, so does the deviation in scanning accuracy. Therefore, the clinician should notice the deviation when using IOSs for the spaced cases.
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.