ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2025
Reproducibility of Digital Measurements on Soft and Hard Tissue.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeThe aim of this proof-of-principle study was to investigate the reproducibility of digital hard- and soft-tissue measurements obtained using an intraoral scanner. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo consecutive digital scans of the maxilla and mandible of 20 subjects aged 18-58 years were captured with an intraoral scanner. Afterwards, the double scans of each subject were virtually matched by three different methods using a dental software program. Linear distances between defined hard- and soft-tissue points on the intraoral scans were measured for each individual. To assess the reproducibility of the measurements for each matching method, the corresponding linear distances of the first and second scans were compared using a paired t-test (p 0.05). ANOVA (p 0.05) was used for comparison of the three matching methods.
resultsFor both hard and soft tissue, the measured linear distances between the first and second scans did not differ statistically significantly. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences between the three matching methods for soft (p = 0.196) and hard (p = 0.963) tissue.
conclusionDigital measurements of hard and soft tissue are reproducible using intraoral scans. Furthermore, all three matching methods are suitable for the superimposition of scans. However, possible inaccuracies may depend on the experience of the practitioner, the technical limitations of the systems used, and patient-related factors.
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.