ArticleJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2025
Accuracy of CAD/CAM Technology in Fabricating Custom Post-and-Core Restorations: A Comparative Analysis.
Article in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 2025. 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.
- Article
- Influence of intraoral scanner type on the marginal fit of digitally fabricated lithium disilicate crowns.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Fracture strength of roots restored with relined and milled glass fiber posts.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to compare the accuracy of various intraoral scanners and traditional analog impressions in scanning root canals for CAD/CAM post-fabrication.
methodsA dental mannequin with a factory-made #21 tooth root canal was used to simulate clinical settings. Three intraoral scanners were tested: CEREC Primescan, TRIOS 3, and CEREC Omnicam. The inEos X5 desktop scanner provided high-resolution control images. The analog impression polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) material was used with custom trays, following standard protocols. The surface areas were measured with CAD software and compared with the desktop scanner's reference.
resultsPrimescan demonstrated the highest accuracy among the intraoral scanners, followed by Trios 3 and Omnicam. Significant differences were found between each scanner and the true surface area. The analog impression method demonstrated superior accuracy compared with intraoral scanners; however, this high precision is attributed to irregularities in the silicone material.
conclusionsThe analog impression method was more accurate in capturing the details of complex root canal anatomy; however, material irregularities can affect its clinical efficacy. Intraoral scanners showed high accuracy but had some limitations in capturing complex geometries. Further development of scanner technology will increase precision and, therefore, the clinical outcome. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The use of CAD/CAM technology and intraoral scanners offers potential for precise, custom-fit post-and-core restorations.
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.