ArticleJournal of Indian Prosthodontic Society2026
Material-dependent trueness of intraoral scanners: A comparative analysis of three scanning technologies for different crowns - An in vitro study.
Article in Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, 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.
- Optimizing Digital Impressions: A Review of Factors Affecting Intraoral Scanner Accuracy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
aimThe aim of this was to assess and compare the accuracy of three intraoral scanners (IOS) under clinical conditions-active triangulation (Medit i700), parallel confocal (3Shape TRIOS), and optical triangulation (Primescan) by comparing their root mean square (RMS) deviation and maximum deviations to a high-accuracy reference scan using the 3Shape E4 extraoral scanner across six different crown material substrates. SETTINGS AND
designThe study was conducted in an in vitro setting, comparing different IOS technologies. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn in vitro study was performed using a three-dimensional (3D)-printed maxillary model with crowns fabricated from lithium disilicate ceramic (Emax), layered zirconia, monolithic zirconia, cobalt-chromium alloy, Polyetheretherketone (Bio-HPP), and Polyetherketoneketone (Pekkton). Each IOS performed 24 scans of the crowns following device-specific protocols. Accuracy was assessed by superimposing scans with the reference using Geomagic Control X software (Version 2020.0.1, 3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) to determine RMS and maximum deviations. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Scanning accuracy among devices and materials was evaluated using one-way analysis of variance with Tukey post hoc tests. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
resultsOptical triangulation demonstrated the highest trueness for most materials, with the lowest RMS deviations for Emax (0.031 ± 0.003 mm), Bio-HPP (0.034 ± 0.002 mm), and Pekkton (0.035 ± 0.002 mm). Active triangulation performed best for the reflective cobalt-chromium alloy (0.183 ± 0.256 mm). There were significant differences seen in the accuracy of scanners and materials (P < 0.05).
conclusionIOS trueness is influenced by substrate material and scanner technology. Optical triangulation excelled with translucent and low-reflective materials, whereas active triangulation showed superior performance with the reflective substrates. Material-specific scanning protocols are critical for achieving optimal clinical outcomes.
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.