ArticleBMC oral health2026
Influence of restorative material types on 3D printed aligner accuracy using intraoral scanners.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study evaluated the effects of restorative materials and intraoral scanners on the mesh data quality of dental models and the accuracy of 3D-printed clear aligners. MATERIALS AND
methodsReference scan data were obtained with a tabletop scanner, while test data were collected using PrimeScan, Trios 3, and i600 scanners. Typodonts with metallic (gold) and non-metallic (zirconia) crowns were scanned. Data from each scanner were assessed for mesh quality and 3D accuracy. 3D printed aligners were subsequently printed based on each scanner's mesh data and evaluated.
resultsThe i600 scanner had the highest mesh quality (0.81), followed by PrimeScan (0.76) and Trios 3 (0.74) scanners, whereas the restorative material had no significant effect on mesh quality (p < 0.05). Resin and zirconia crowns were generally measured larger than actual sizes, while gold crowns tended to be similarly measured or smaller. PrimeScan showed the highest accuracy for full-arch scans, while Trios 3 measured significantly smaller than the other two scanners p < 0.05). For gold crowns, i600 displayed the highest RMS value at 59 μm p < 0.05). Aligners printed from i600 scans showed the largest RMS value on the inner surface near gold crowns, averaging 94 μm.
conclusionsTypes of restorative material and scanner can significantly affect the accuracy of 3D printed aligners and mesh quality. Metallic restorations can decrease accuracy with triangulation-based scanners. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinical application of intraoral scanners that are less influenced by restorative materials, particularly metallic restorations, may improve the predictability of 3D-printed aligner treatment and help optimize 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.