ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluating the feasibility of conventional and digital impressions of full-arch by the absolute linear deviation method: 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. 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
Abstract
backgroundIntraoral scanners (IOS) facilitate dental treatment, but the efficacy in full-arch scanning remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare arch deformations between conventional impressions (CIs) and digital impressions (DIs) across six distinct spans in the maxillary and mandibular models, using the absolute linear deviation method.
methodsStandard maxillary and mandibular models, each with seven cylindrical landmarks added, were used as the reference. CIs and DIs as test scans (n = 15 each) were performed on the models using silicone impression material and three IOSs: CS3600, Trios3, and Trios5. The trueness of the distances and angles between the remaining cylinders and initial scanning cylinder were evaluated. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and One-way ANOVA tests, with the Bonferroni test for post hoc analysis (α = 0.05).
resultsDeviations of DIs increased gradually from smaller spans to full-arch spans, while deviations of CIs remained stable. Within a 5-tooth-units, DIs provided superior trueness compared to CIs (P < 0.05), except for ΔL8, where the results from four impression methods were comparable (P = 0.28). For other measurements, CIs exhibited significantly better trueness than three IOSs (P < 0.05).
conclusionsThe current accuracy of IOSs was insufficient for full-arch applications, but suitable for short scan ranges (fixed prostheses within a 5-unit span).
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.