ArticleGalen medical journal2024
In Vitro Evaluation of the Effect of Scanning Strategy on the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners : In Vitro Evaluation of the Effect of Scanning Strategy on the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners.
Article in Galen medical journal, 2024. 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.
- Enhancing Intraoral Scanning Accuracy: From the Influencing Factors to a Procedural Guideline.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The accuracy of intraoral scanners depends on the scanning strategy, but evidence on how these strategies affect trueness and precision across scanners is limited. Identifying optimal strategies is key to improving performance and clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: A dental cast obtained from an impression of a fully-dentate patient was initially scanned by a laboratory scanner and then by three intraoral scanners namely Trios®4, Carestream 3800, and Medit i700 with three different scanning strategies of A (occlusal surfaces from the left end to the right end, followed by lingual and then buccal surfaces), B (buccal surfaces followed by occlusal and then lingual surfaces from left to right), and C (continuous labiolingual movement with left-to-right direction). Scans were converted to STL format and analyzed in Geomagic for trueness and precision (ISO 5725-1) using ANOVA, Tukey, Welch, and Games-Howell tests (alpha = 0.05). Results: The effect of scanning strategy was significant on trueness of Carestream (P=0.002) but not Medit and Trios4 (P0.05). In Carestream, the trueness of strategy A was significantly higher than B (P=0.001). The effect of scanning strategy was significant on precision of Medit (P0.001) but not Carestream and Trios4 (P0.05). In Medit, the precision of strategy B was significantly lower than A and C (P0.001 for both). Conclusion: The scanning strategy's effect on accuracy varied by scanner type. Strategy A was most accurate in Carestream, while strategy B showed the lowest precision in Medit i700. Other scanners and strategies had similar precision.
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.