ArticleJournal of dental sciences2026
Effects of restorative materials, colors, and surface finishing on the scanning accuracy of an intraoral scanner.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2026. 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.
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
Background/purpose: When teeth are restored using dental materials, there is potential for these restorations to influence the accuracy of intraoral scans. Such variations in accuracy could subsequently affect the precision of the derived virtual cast, the registration of the maxillo-mandibular relationship, and the fabrication of prostheses. This study aimed to assess the effect of various restorative materials, prosthesis colors, and their surface finishes on the accuracy of intraoral scans performed with a TRIOS 4 scanner. Materials and methods: Using a 4 × 2 × 2 factorial experimental design, the research analyzed how metal-ceramic, zirconia, lithium disilicate, and milled PMMA; shades B1 and A4; and surface finishes (either polishing or glazing) influence the trueness and precision of scans. The trueness and precision were quantified using root mean square (RMS) values. Results: Significant differences in scan accuracy were observed, contingent on material, color, and finishing, along with notable interactions between these factors. Overall, PMMA exhibited the highest trueness and zirconia demonstrated the best precision. Polished lithium disilicate and PMMA showed better trueness for the A4 shade, whereas glazed lithium disilicate and PMMA performed better for the B1 shade. Metal-ceramic restorations showed an opposite trend. Zirconia restorations showed better trueness for A4 shade than B1 shade for both polished and glazed surfaces. Conclusion: Significant interactions between materials, colors, and surface treatments were observed. Although clinicians may not be able to modify existing restorations' materials, color, or surface treatment, they need to be mindful that the intricate interaction of these factors will affect the accuracy of intraoral scans.
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.