ArticleJournal of dental sciences2025
Trueness and precision analysis of crown margins on digital casts produced by various dental scanning systems.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Purpose: Digital dental scanning systems play a crucial role in producing precise dental restorations. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of different dental scanning devices on the trueness and precision of crown margins designed from digital models. It also focused on the influence of scanners and design software system alignment. Materials and methods: A standard dental cast was scanned using two intraoral scanners (Trios 3, Primescan) and three desktop scanners (S3, E3, X5). Crown designs were created for each cast using dental design software (inLab SW 16.1, Dentsply Sirona), resulting in a total of 25 digital crown files. These files retained only a 1 mm height from the cervical margin toward the occlusal direction for margin analysis. Root mean square error (RMSE) values were calculated to assess trueness and precision. Results: The trueness values for the same scanner ranged from 23.4 ± 4.1 μm to 42.1 ± 11.8 μm. Primescan (23.4 ± 4.1 μm) and X5 (29.7 ± 7.0 μm), which belonged to the same system as the design software, demonstrated superior accuracy ( Conclusion: The type of scanner and its system alignment significantly influenced the accuracy of crown margins. Ensuring compatibility between scanning devices and design software in clinical practice could enhance the precision of dental restorations.
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.