ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
A Comparative Analysis of Complete Coverage Tooth Preparation Design and Scan Angulation on the Accuracy of Two Different Intra-Oral Digital Scanners: A 3-Dimensional Study.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Intraoral scanners have revolutionized dental practice, but their accuracy may depend on preparation design and scan angulation. This study assessed how full-coverage preparation and scan angulation affect the accuracy of two scanners (TRIOS and Carestream 3600) for single restorations, both with and without adjacent teeth. Materials and Methods: A maxillary typodont with six full-coverage preparations was scanned using TRIOS and Carestream 3600. Each was scanned twice: with adjacent teeth (STL A) and without (STL B). Data were analyzed using SPSS v21 with independent Results: Carestream showed significantly lower discrepancies than TRIOS with adjacent teeth for AAD (2.1417 vs. 2.7567; Conclusion: Carestream demonstrated consistently higher accuracy than TRIOS, regardless of adjacent teeth, confirming its reliability for digital impressions in varied clinical situations.
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.