ArticleJournal of Indian Prosthodontic Society2026
Comparative evaluation of effect of rescanning and cut out & stitching with uninterrupted single scan on the accuracy of digital impressions - 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. 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
aimThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of digital impressions (DIs) subjected to rescanning, cutout, and stitching procedures compared to an uninterrupted single scan. Special focus on comparing the effects of these interventions on edentulous regions versus prepared abutment surfaces. SETTINGS AND
designThis was an in vitro study. MATERIALS AND
methodsA mandibular typodont with a prepared second molar and an edentulous first molar region was scanned using an intraoral scanner (3 Shape TRIOS 3). Fifty DIs were divided into five groups: uninterrupted single scan, rescanning, cutout and stitching of the concern area, cut-out and stitching of the edentulous area, and cutout and stitching of the prepared abutment. Accuracy was assessed by superimposing STL files of Dis and a reference laboratory scan using three-dimensional metrology software to calculate trueness and precision for local measures and reproducibility, whereas root mean square (RMS) was evaluated for overall geometric deviation. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics v20.0. Normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. One-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc tests was used for trueness and precision, while the Kruskal-Wallis test with Bonferroni correction was used for RMSE. Independent-samples t-tests compared the cutout and stitching techniques between the edentulous and prepared-tooth groups. Statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.
resultsThe uninterrupted single scans demonstrated significantly higher trueness and precision compared with rescanning and cutout with stitching ( P < .05). No significant differences were observed between rescanning and cutout groups. Within the cutout groups, prepared abutment rescans yielded significantly greater accuracy than edentulous area rescans ( P < .001); whereas RMS error (RMSE) was lowest for rescanning, followed by cutout, whereas uninterrupted scans showing higher variability.
conclusionUninterrupted single scans provided the most accurate DIs overall. Rescanning and cutout with stitching procedures reduced trueness and precision but produced clinically acceptable results. Uninterrupted scans having better trueness/precision, but rescanning showing better RMS accuracy was more adversely affected in edentulous regions than in prepared abutments, highlighting the importance of uninterrupted scanning protocols in partially edentulous cases.
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.