ArticleJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2025
Trueness comparison of various intraoral scanners and hybrid workflow for ceramic restoration.
Article in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe scanned abutment file for the digital design of restorations can be either obtained directly using the intraoral scanner (IOS) or scanning the impression or the working model with the extraoral scanner (EOS). The trueness of the scanned file pertains to its effect on the accuracy of the restoration.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the trueness of scan files from different intraoral scanners (IOSs) and the hybrid workflow using the E3 extraoral scanner (EOS) for ceramic restoration. METHODOLOGY: The model of the mandibular right first molar was prepared for the ceramic crown, and it was scanned with the EOS in reference Standard Tessellation Language (STL) file format. The following seven experimental groups were investigated. The IOSs-iTero Element 5D (IT), Trios 4 (TF), Medit i700 (MI), Primescan (PM), Virtuo Vivo (VV)-were directly scanned on the prepared model. The silicone impression of the prepared model was scanned with EOS (IS). The working model poured from the impression was scanned with the EOS (WS). The test STL file was trimmed and superimposed on the reference STL file for the trueness assessment using Geomagic Control X. The point deviation at the surface and margin of each group were compared. The mean deviation was calculated and statistically analyzed with One-way ANOVA (α=0.05). The minimum and maximum deviation of each area were also recorded.
resultsCompared with the other groups, the impression scan group had a significantly greatest deviation (p<0.05) in surface (37.65±1.14 µm), margin (63.57±5.85 µm) and overall (50.61±3.28 µm). The WS group showed significantly greater deviation (p<0.05) in surface (23.93±1.20 µm), margin (46.18±2.00 µm) and overall (35.05±1.16 µm) than the IOS groups. In some IOS groups, the deviation was also significantly different (p<0.05).
conclusionThe IOS is recommended for obtaining the scanned file due to its lesser deviation when compared to the hybrid workflow. While statistical differences exist among IOSs, the clinical relevance of these differences appears minimal. If the IOS does not exist, scanning the working model is preferred over scanning impressions directly. However, further clinical validation studies are necessary to confirm this finding.
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.