ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2026
Influence of adjacent restorative material and distance on the accuracy of inlay cavity impressions with intraoral scanner: an in vitro study.
Article in Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: : This study aimed to evaluate the influence of adjacent restorative material and interproximal distance on the accuracy of digital impressions of inlay cavities obtained using an intraoral scanner. Methods: A disto-occlusal inlay cavity was prepared on a mandibular right first molar model, and digital scans were performed using a CEREC Primescan (Dentsply Sirona). The adjacent restorative materials used were Lava (3M ESPE), ENAMIC (VITA Zahnfabrik), Celtra Duo (Dentsply Sirona), and DMAX (DMAX), and the interproximal distances were set to 0.6 mm, 0.8 mm, and 1.0 mm. The obtained scan data were analyzed using GOM Inspect software (GOM GmbH). Results: Trueness, maximum positive and negative deviations, and precision were significantly influenced by both the adjacent restorative material and the interproximal distance, while their interaction showed a significant effect only on precision. Celtra Duo demonstrated the highest trueness, with mean deviation values decreasing from 7.8 μm at a 0.6 mm interproximal distance to 7.3 μm at 1.0 mm. ENAMIC showed the best precision, presenting mean deviations of 2.6 μm at 0.6 mm, 2.9 μm at 0.8 mm, and 2.4 μm at 1.0 mm. A narrow interproximal distance of 0.6 mm resulted in lower trueness, measured at 8.3 μm, and the highest precision deviation of 3.4 μm. In contrast, an interproximal distance of 1.0 mm yielded improved scan accuracy, with increased trueness and reduced precision variation. Conclusions: Digital impression accuracy of inlay cavities was influenced by adjacent restorative material and interproximal distance, suggesting clinical consideration is needed in CAD/CAM workflows to optimize restoration fit.
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.