ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Influence of intraoral scan extension on the accuracy of impressions with 3d-printed identical single tooth preparations.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study investigated whether the accuracy of the digital impression of identical single-tooth preparations is influenced by the size of an intraoral scan. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe intraoral scans of 30 subjects with identical preparations for a molar and a premolar were digitally processed, 3d-printed and rescanned in different scan extensions. The scans of the entire dental arch, the half arch and the sequence from the preparation with adjacent teeth were examined. The approximal and occlusal distances between the preparation and the adjacent teeth were measured, as were the volumes of the prepared teeth. For statistical analysis, A Friedman test was performed for the precision measurements and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test for the trueness measurements.
resultsThe original planning differed significantly from the measurements of the volumes (p < 0.001) and the occlusal distances of the molar and premolar (p ≤ 0.003). The sequence scan differed significantly when comparing the volumes of the molar (p < 0.001), the approximal distance measurement of the premolar (p < 0.001) and the occlusal distance measurement of the premolar (p < 0.001). The measurements of the half arch had the smallest median deviations (approximal ≤ 26 μm, occlusal ≤ 102 μm) from the original planning, compared to the sequence (approximal ≤ 26 μm, occlusal ≤ 131 μm) and full arch scan (approximal ≤ 27 μm, occlusal ≤ 122 μm).
conclusionsSmall scan extensions can provide more accurate results than larger scan sizes, whereby approximal distances are recorded more precisely than occlusal ones. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: 3d-printing and intraoral scanning with small scan sizes can reproducibly achieve clinically acceptable accuracies with high consistency.
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.