ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of the accuracy of digital impressions obtained with confocal microscopy and structured light triangulation systems in pediatric patients with different mouth opening: 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.
- Impact of Maneuverability Constraints on Intraoral Scanner Performance.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraoral scanners (IOS) are increasingly utilized in pediatric dentistry to capture digital impressions, offering advantages over traditional impression materials, particularly in young patients. However, the accuracy and precision of these devices may be influenced by factors such as limited mouth opening, which is common in pediatric patients. This study aims to evaluate the effect of mouth opening on the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions obtained via two different IOS technologies: confocal microscopy (Trios 5) and structured light triangulation (Helios 600).
methodsA typodont deciduous teeth model was scanned at three mouth opening levels (28 mm, 33 mm, 37 mm) using both IOS. Accuracy was analyzed through two-dimensional (2D) linear measurements and three-dimensional (3D) superimpositions, assessing trueness and precision. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests (p < 0.05).
resultsAt all mouth opening levels, no statistically significant differences in trueness were observed between the two scanners (p > 0.05). However, a significant difference in precision was found at the 28 mm opening, where the Helios 600 exhibited notably lower 2D precision compared to the Trios 5, both in the maxilla (p = 0.02) and mandible (p = 0.03). The 3D precision values for scans obtained with the Helios 600 were statistically significantly lower than those obtained with the Trios 5, both in the maxilla (p = 0.017) and mandible (p = 0.021). No significant differences in precision were observed at the 33 mm and 37 mm openings (p > 0.05).
conclusionsThis study demonstrated that both the Trios 5 and Helios 600 intraoral scanners provided clinically acceptable trueness values. However, Trios 5 exhibited significantly better precision, particularly in cases with limited mouth opening. These results suggest that Trios 5 may offer improved reliability, especially for pediatric patients with reduced mouth opening.
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.