ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparison of intraoral scanner accuracy before and after calibration: 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of Superimposition Strategies and Landmark Distribution on the Full-Arch Trueness of Orthodontic Digital Models.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Autonomous robotic execution of nonlinear toolpaths for geometry-matched osteotomy in tooth autotransplantation: an in vitro study.International journal of oral science · 2026Article
- Mapping Error Propagation in Intraoral Scanning Using Reason's Swiss-Cheese Model: An In Vitro Study of Precision Under Repeatability Conditions.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of direct and digital measurements of peri-implant defects using CBCT, ultrasound, and intraoral scanning.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2026Article
- Clinical Evaluation of Intraoral, In-Lab Scanners and PVS Impression Materials Using STL Superimposition.Dentistry journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraoral scanners are an essential part of modern digital dentistry, yet the influence of calibration on their accuracy remains underexplored. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of calibration on the scanning accuracy of the TRIOS 3 intraoral scanner after a noncalibrated period of 324 days.
methodsDigital impressions of upper and lower full-arch phantom jaw models were obtained before and after calibration using the TRIOS 3 intraoral scanner (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark; software version 22.1.1). A total of 20 scans (five before and five after calibration for each jaw) were acquired by a single experienced operator. Reference scans were obtained with an extraoral scanner (E4, 3Shape, Denmark). Linear measurements (intermolar and interpremolar) and three-dimensional superimposition parameters (Absolute Average, Root Mean Square, and (90-10)/2) were used to assess trueness and precision. All measurements were performed using Medit Link software (version 3.3.6; Medit).
resultsAssessment of method error demonstrated excellent intrarater reliability for all trueness and precision parameters (ICC > 0.994, P < 0.001). Statistical analyses revealed minor differences in linear measurements and three-dimensional superimposition values before and after calibration, none of which reached statistical significance (P > 0.05). Regarding trueness, the upper jaw showed slightly increased Absolute Average (0.068 ± 0.004) and (90-10)/2 values (0.093 ± 0.006) after calibration compared to before calibration (0.065 ± 0.003 and 0.087 ± 0.006, respectively), while the lower jaw exhibited higher Root Mean Square values after calibration (0.088 ± 0.008) than before (0.076 ± 0.006). Precision results showed a slightly increased Absolute Average (0.029 ± 0.003), Root Mean Square (0.064 ± 0.006) and (90 - 10)/2 (0.036 ± 0.006) values in the upper jaw, and Root Mean Square (0.095 ± 0.010) values in the lower jaw after calibration. Trueness and precision of linear measurements also showed a general decrease after calibration in both jaws, though the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
conclusionsThe findings of this study show that the TRIOS 3 intraoral scanner maintained its accuracy without calibration for up to 324 days, suggesting that occasional deviations from manufacturer-recommended calibration intervals may not compromise scan quality. However, adherence to routine calibration is recommended until further evidence is available.
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.