ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Trueness of Intraoral Scanners for Edentulous Mandibular Arches With and Without Landmarks.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the trueness of three intraoral scanners (IOS) and to assess the impact of geometrical landmarks on the digitization of edentulous mandibular complete-arch casts using a standardized scanning protocol. Material and Methods: A 3D-printed edentulous mandibular cast with five cylindrical landmarks was scanned using three IOS systems (Medit i700, Primescan AC and Trios 5) under two conditions: with and without geometrical landmarks (GL/NG). Each scanner performed 15 scans per condition. A coordinate measuring machine (CMM) provided reference values for cross-arch and inter-cylindrical distances. STL files were analyzed in GOM Inspect to calculate trueness and precision. Statistical evaluation included Shapiro-Wilk tests and paired t-tests ( = 0.05). Results: Only the Medit i700 scanner showed significantly improved trueness with geometrical landmarks for both cross-arch (P = 0.0011) and inter-cylindrical (P = 0.0060) measurements. Primescan AC and Trios 5 scanners showed no significant differences between GL and NG conditions (P > 0.05). Visual analyses supported these findings, with Medit i700 benefiting from landmarks, while Primescan AC and Trios 5 maintained high trueness regardless of scanning strategy. Conclusions: The addition of geometrical landmarks improved scan trueness significantly for the Medit i700 scanner but had no measurable effect on Primescan AC or Trios 5. These findings suggest that the influence of auxiliary landmarks is scanner-dependent and should be considered when optimizing scanning protocols for edentulous arches.
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.