ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2026
Influence of intraoral scanner type on the marginal fit of digitally fabricated lithium disilicate crowns.
Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The accuracy of restorations fabricated through digital workflows is partially determined by the intraoral scanner utilized. This study evaluated the marginal fit of digitally fabricated lithium disilicate single crowns produced using two intraoral scanners: the iTero® Element and the Planmeca® Emerald. Methods: Eleven non-carious molar teeth were prepared for full-coverage lithium disilicate crowns and scanned with both intraoral scanners. Restorations were designed using Romexis software and milled with a Planmeca® milling unit. Marginal fit, defined as the vertical discrepancy between the restoration margin and the prepared tooth surface, was measured at six locations per crown using a digital microscope at 80× magnification. Results and discussion: Crowns fabricated from iTero® scans showed more consistent measurements, whereas those from Planmeca® scans showed greater variability. The mean marginal discrepancy was 51.27 µm for the iTero® group and 73.18 µm for the Planmeca® group. Although the iTero® group exhibited a lower mean marginal discrepancy, the difference between groups was statistically significant (
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.