ArticleDental research journal2025
Comparison of dimensional accuracy of digital models by intraoral scanning method in comparison with molding with alginate.
Article in Dental research journal, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intraoral scanners (IOS) have been developed to address the drawbacks of traditional impression systems, such as improving patient comfort and expediting the restoration process. The objective of this study was to compare the dimensional accuracy of IOSs with traditional impression systems. Materials and Methods: In this experimental study, a maxillary reference model was utilized for the study. The mesiodistal, occlusogingival, and buccolingual distances between points were measured on the model using a digital caliper and recorded as the control group. The reference model was then scanned once using an IOS device (CEREC AC) to generate a digital model. Reference points were measured and recorded using EXOCAD V.2019 software. Sixteen alginate impressions were cast in separate trays from the reference model, and dental stone IV was poured into them. Reference points were also measured on the casts using a caliper. Finally, the measurements of IOS models, alginate templates, and reference models were compared in terms of size and dimensional differences. Data analysis was performed using the analysis of variance with independent Results: The mean differences in mesiodistal dimensions of only the right second premolars ( Conclusion: Based on the results of this study and acknowledging its limitations, it can be concluded that the IOS method yielded a greater number of measurements than the reference model when evaluated on a limited number of teeth within the complete maxillary arch. However, the measurements obtained using the alginate method were more closely aligned with those of the reference model. The minimal differences observed between digital impressions and traditional measurement techniques, the IOS method may be regarded as a viable alternative to conventional methods, owing to its numerous advantages.
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.