Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40952890›Full record

ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2024

The accuracy of digital scanners versus conventional impression in patients with cleft lip and palate: A cross-sectional study.

Natthasit Pudpong, Subin Puasiri, Amornrut Manosudprasit

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Natthasit PudpongDivision of Orthodontics, Department of Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.
Subin PuasiriDivision of Dental Public Health, Department of Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Amornrut ManosudprasitDivision of Orthodontics, Department of Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: As the use of digital models has expanded across numerous fields, the accuracy of three-dimensional images captured by various intraoral scanners has become a key research focus. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of digital scanners (TRIOS 4, iTero Element 5D, and E2) compared with the conventional impression method (gold standard) in patients with cleft lip and palate. Materials and Methods: Impressions were taken from 20 patients using these scanners and alginate impressions during the same session. Additionally, plaster models were created and scanned using an E2 scanner, and 50 parameters were measured using a digital caliper. All digital models were then analyzed using 3Shape software. Measurement reliability and differences among the four methods were assessed by repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by post-hoc analysis. Subsequently, best-fit superimposition was performed to verify the deviated areas between the digital models. Results: The plaster cast measurements and digital models obtained using three different scanners revealed high reliability (0.94-1.00). Statistically significant differences between the dental models were observed in 20 out of 50 parameters ( Conclusion: This study concluded that digital scanners have accuracy comparable to conventional methods, except for depth-related soft tissue parameters, which exhibited a high level of discrepancy.

Indexed as

AccuracyDigital modelIntraoral scannerPatients with cleft lip and palatePlaster model

Identifiers

PMID40952890
PMCPMC11976091

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.