ArticleScientific reports2025
An in-vitro study on factors influencing the accuracy of current intraoral scanners.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Effect of 3D superimposition software on intraoral scanner accuracy and monitoring outcome.Clinical oral investigations · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intraoral scanning devices are an essential part of many digital pathways in dentistry. The aim of this first factorial comparative in-vitro study was to evaluate the influence of different jaw model configurations (model types: upper jaw [upper], upper jaw with palate [upper-pal], lower jaw [lower]) and examiners on trueness and precision of digital full-arch impressions across seven intraoral scanners. Reference models were scanned with Emerald Green [EME]; iTero 5D [ITE]; Medit i900 [MED]; Primescan [PRI]; Primescan2 [PS2]; Aoralscan 3 [SHI]; Trios 5 [TR5]. Each model type was scanned ten times (n = 10) per device, divided between two examiners with different experience levels. Trueness and precision were calculated using the (90_10)/2-percentile. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model with model type and examiner as fixed effects and scanning device as a random effect. The trueness values ranged from PRI (29.0 ± 3.7 μm, [upper-pal]) to EME (94.9 ± 18.5 μm, [lower]). Examiner and model type had no significant effect on trueness. For precision, the model type [upper-pal] showed a significant positive effect (p < 0.001), factor examiner had a significant effect (p = 0.04). The model type and examiner experience can influence the accuracy of digital impressions; however, the values observed were within clinically acceptable thresholds (< 100 μm). Including the palate in upper jaw scans can improve accuracy for certain intraoral scanners. Optimizing scanning strategies, exercising and considering jaw anatomy-especially the inclusion of the palate-may enhance scanners' accuracy.
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.