SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2025
Analyzing the influence of scanning speeds and distances on digital intraoral scans: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 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.
- Material-dependent trueness of intraoral scanners: A comparative analysis of three scanning technologies for different crowns - An in vitro study.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society · 2026Article
- Evaluating the accuracy of intraoral scanners across varied depths and widths preparation for CAD/CAM post and core.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the influence of scanning speed and distance on the precision and quality of digital intraoral scans. DATA: The PICO strategy was employed to delineate the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The acquired records underwent filtration according to eligibility criteria, with essential information subsequently extracted. The meta-analysis, facilitated by Review Manager 5.4, utilized chi-square and the inconsistency index, along with forest plots. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was employed for the comparative analysis of study groups. Additionally, the study encompassed assessments of publication bias and the quality of included studies. SOURCES: The search was conducted using three Internet databases: PubMed, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library.
resultsAmong the evaluated scanners (Trios 3, Trios 4, iTero, Primescan, Medit i500), only TRIOS 3 exhibited a statistically significant sensitivity to scanning parameters (SMD = -4.03; 95% CI: -7.26 to -0.80; P = 0.01). Increased scanning distances and faster speeds markedly reduced its accuracy, likely due to its older optical technology lacking real-time error correction features present in newer models like TRIOS 4 and Primescan. No significant effects were observed for TRIOS 4, Primescan, or Medit i500 (P > 0.05), suggesting their advanced hardware/software mitigates parameter variability.
conclusionsClinicians using TRIOS 3 should prioritize shorter scanning distances (5-10 mm) and slower speeds to optimize accuracy, as its performance is highly dependent on operator-controlled parameters. In contrast, newer scanners (e.g., TRIOS 4, Primescan) demonstrate greater resilience to distance/speed variations, enabling flexible clinical workflows. These findings underscore the importance of device-specific protocols to enhance digital impression reliability in restorative and prosthetic dentistry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40211050What 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.