ArticleBMC oral health2025
Trueness and depth discrepancy of post-space scans using an intraoral scanner: influence of preparation dimensions: an in vitro study.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraoral scanning of post spaces offers a potential alternative to conventional impressions, but its effectiveness depends on overcoming limitations influenced by post space dimensions. AIM OF THE STUDY: This study aimed to evaluate the trueness and depth discrepancy percentage of scanned post spaces with different dimensions using an intraoral scanner. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty single-rooted human maxillary canines were endodontically treated. Teeth were assigned to two post space preparation width groups: N (Ø1.5 mm) and W (Ø1.7 mm) (n = 10 per group). Each width group was further subdivided into two depth subgroups: S (6 mm) and L (10 mm) (n = 5 per subgroup). This resulted in four experimental subgroups: NS (Ø1.5 mm, 6 mm), NL (Ø1.5 mm, 10 mm), WS (Ø1.7 mm, 6 mm), and WL (Ø1.7 mm, 10 mm). Specimens were scanned using the Panda P2 intraoral scanner (IOS), and the obtained STL files were aligned and compared with those from traditional impressions scanned with the InEos X5. Trueness and depth discrepancy percentage were evaluated using reverse engineering software. The data were statistically analysed using a Two-Way ANOVA, followed by multiple pairwise comparisons using Tukey's HSD for each individual factor.
resultsPreparation width had no significant effect on trueness (p > 0.05), whereas increasing preparation depth significantly reduced it. Additionally, a greater preparation width significantly decreased the depth discrepancy percentage, while increasing preparation depth led to a significant increase. A statistically significant, very strong positive correlation was observed between RMS and depth discrepancy percentage (r = 0.898), indicating that greater deviations in trueness were associated with increased depth discrepancies.
conclusionsWithin the study's limitations, trueness improved by reducing post space depth and remained clinically acceptable for all subgroups. However, increasing depth to 10 mm raised the depth discrepancy beyond the clinically acceptable range, while decreasing width also increased discrepancy. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.