ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Comparison of the accuracy of conventional impression technique and an intraoral scanning system after crown preparation in canine teeth of dogs: a cadaver study.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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.
- Comparison of dental surface of canine teeth in dogs after crown preparation using CBCT-based surface reconstruction or conventional dental impression materials.Frontiers in veterinary science · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare digital impressions obtained by an intraoral scanner (IOS) with the dimensions of the corresponding stone model produced from conventional impressions and the original tooth to assess the accuracy of IOS in veterinary dentistry. Methods: In this cadaver study, 40 canine teeth of dogs underwent standard crown-preparation. For each specimen, both conventional impressions with subsequent stone model fabrication and digital impressions were obtained. The surfaces of the stone replicas and the original teeth were scanned, and the distance between the stone model surface and the original tooth surface, as well as the surface of the intraoral scan and the original tooth surface, was compared. Mean and median surface deviations were computed in millimeters using a 3D surface comparison tool of Amira 3D Pro software (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA). Results: Even though the deviations between the stone models and the original teeth were lower compared to the ones between digital impressions and the original teeth in both mean and median, no significant differences in the deviations from the original tooth between both modalities were detected ( Conclusion: The observed deviations between digital and conventional impression techniques were minimal and fell within clinically acceptable thresholds as defined in human dentistry literature. These results indicate that this IOS system could provide a reliable and accurate alternative for capturing crown-prepared canine teeth in dogs compared to the currently used standard technique.
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.