ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Influence of different dental scenarios on the accuracy of computerized optical impressions: an in vitro pilot study.
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 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.
- Evaluating the feasibility of intraoral scanning technology for removable partial dentures: ai-assisted measurement analysis and clinical investigation.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the accuracy of digital impressions obtained with confocal microscopy and structured light triangulation systems in pediatric patients with different mouth opening: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis in vitro study aimed to determine the influence of various dental scenarios on the accuracy of computerized optical impressions (COIM), specifically focusing on trueness and precision. MATERIALS AND
methodsEight resin casts representing different dental scenarios, including fully dentate upper (UU) and lower jaws (UL), full-arch preparation (FA), single abutment preparations (SA), anterior (AB) and lateral bridge preparations (LB), partial crown preparations (PA), and veneer preparations (VE), were digitally captured using an extraoral reference scanner and an intraoral scanner. The datasets from both scanners were superimposed to calculate and statistically evaluate three-dimensional mean deviations.
resultsThe accuracy of maxillary full-arch scans was lowest in the PA scenario (trueness: 34.18 ± 5.46 μm, precision: 36.0 ± 14.69 μm) and LB scenario (trueness: 33.18 ± 7.86 μm, precision: 47.70 ± 14.09 μm). The best accuracy was observed in the SA (trueness: 21.38 ± 1.87 μm, precision: 22.25 ± 4.31 μm) and FA (trueness: 23.75 ± 1.51 μm, precision: 15.26 ± 3.41 μm) scenarios, significantly better than UU (trueness: 29.67 ± 0.79 μm, precision: 29.51 ± 1.17 μm). Soft tissue included in the scans of UU and UL lowered accuracy.
conclusionsThe accuracy of COIM varies significantly with different dental scenarios. Scenarios with extensive edentulous areas and complex preparation designs exhibit lower accuracy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Accurate dental impressions are vital for the proper fit of prosthetic restorations. This study highlights that scenarios with less edentulous areas and simpler preparation designs yield better accuracy. Clinicians should be mindful that large edentulous areas and complex preparations can pose challenges for intraoral scanners, requiring careful scanning strategies to mitigate potential inaccuracies.
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.