ArticleBMC oral health2025
Accuracy and patient satisfaction of intraoral scanner in preschool-aged children: a combined in vivo and in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral scanner (IOS) in both intraoral and extraoral settings within primary dentition, as well as patient satisfaction among preschool-aged children.
methodsForty-one preschool-aged children underwent intraoral scanning with the iTero Element 2 scanner and conventional alginate impressions (CI). Resulting plaster models were digitized via both IOS and a desktop scanner. To assess precision, one plaster model was scanned ten times with the IOS. Accuracy was measured via Geomagic Control 2022, which evaluated root mean square (RMS) deviation and intra-arch linear distances. A validated questionnaire was used to access the degree of comfort and preference between IOS and CI. Statistical analyses included paired t-tests, repeated-measures ANOVA, Friedman tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, with statistical significance set at P < 0.05.
resultsThe trueness of the intraoral scan was 0.1282 ± 0.0230 mm (maxilla) and 0.1341 ± 0.0255 mm (mandible), whereas the extraoral scan showed significantly higher trueness (0.0399 ± 0.0059 mm in the maxilla, 0.0430 ± 0.0087 mm in the mandible) (P < 0.001). The precision was 0.0347 ± 0.0066 mm for the maxilla and 0.0358 ± 0.0063 mm for the mandible. Most intra-arch distances showed no significant variation across scanning methods. The questionnaire responses favored IOS, with significantly greater comfort and preference (P = 0.014), despite some perceptions of scanner bulkiness.
conclusionsThe IOS delivers high accuracy for both intraoral and extraoral scans in primary dentition and is well accepted by preschool children, showing potential for wider application in pediatric dentistry.
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.