ArticleBMC oral health2025
In vitro assessment of the accuracy of two intra-oral scanners for post space scanning in a fully digital workflow.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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.
- Digital Impressions for Customized Post-and-Core Restorations in Deep and Narrow Canals: A Case Report Utilizing Scan Posts.Case reports in dentistry · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the rapid advancements in computer-aided imaging, the potential for chairside fabrication of custom-made posts utilizing intraoral scanners may offer a reliable alternative to traditional physical impressions. Accordingly, this study aimed to evaluate the accuracy (trueness and precision) of two intra-oral scanners when different post space diameters were employed. Additionally, the scan depth of each intra-oral scanner (IOS) was assessed.
methodsAn endodontically treated mandibular canine was inserted in a printed typodont model and prepared with two post-space diameters; a small one (1.5 mm) and a large one (2 mm). Polyvinyl siloxane impressions for the two post-space diameters were taken and then scanned with an extra-oral scanner to serve as reference scans. Each post-space diameter was scanned using CEREC Primescan (n = 8) and Medit i700 (n = 8) intra-oral scanners. Standard tessellation language (STL) files of all intra-oral and extra-oral scans were uploaded to a 3D matching program to evaluate trueness, precision, and post-space length difference. Statistical analysis was performed using different tests for parametric and non-parametric data. The significance level was set at P < 0.05.
resultsRegarding the effect of the IOS and the effect of the post-space diameter, both Medit i700 and the small diameter groups using both scanners showed significantly higher root mean square (RMS) values when evaluating trueness. For precision, Medit i700 showed a significantly higher RMS value in the large diameter group. Medit i700 showed a significantly higher difference in post-space length than Primescan in both diameters. Primescan recorded a zero difference in the large diameter group compared to the reference scan.
conclusionsThe IOS type and the post-space diameter influenced the scan accuracy and the depth of the scan. Accuracy results were superior when Primescan was implemented for scanning the large diameter post-space subgroup.
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.