ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Capturing of interdental areas with digital and conventional impression systems and their impact on automatic tooth segmentation in CAD software: an in vitro study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis in vitro study evaluated and compared the accuracy of digital versus conventional impression systems in reproducing interdental areas (IAs) of periodontally compromised dentitions (PCDs) and examined how impression quality influences automated tooth segmentation in CAD software. MATERIALS AND
methodsA standardized PCD model was captured with one conventional polyvinylsiloxane impression (CVI), four wireless intra‑oral scanners (IOS) - Dexis IS 3800 W (3800‑wl), Medit i700w (i700‑wl), Primescan 2 (PRI2‑wl), Trios 5 (TRI5‑wl) - and a wired Primescan AC (PRI1‑w). Raw scan data, digitally mounted casts after scan‑repair, and digital casts after tooth segmentation in OnyxCeph were analyzed. IA reproduction accuracy and segmentation quality were statistically compared using the Median test and Chi‑squared test (p < 0.05).
resultsAll IOS reproduced IAs significantly more accurately than the CVI (p < 0.001). Among IOS, PRI2‑wl achieved > 80% correct IA reproduction, whereas 3800‑wl and TRI5‑wl fell short by up to 20%. Scan‑repair marginally improved IA capture for some IOS, while the conventional impression showed no change. Segmentation errors clustered in teeth with pronounced gingival recession; healthy gingiva yielded higher accuracy. Significant differences between raw and segmented data were found for TRI5‑wl (p = 0.027) and 3800‑wl (p = 0.044).
conclusionsWithin the limits of this in vitro study, IOS outperform conventional impressions for IA reproduction in PCDs. Accuracy varies among IOS and is linked to raw‑scan quality. Automated segmentation is reliable for teeth with healthy gingiva but is challenged by periodontal defects. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Precise IA capture enhances orthodontic movement planning and streamlines CAD‑based workflows, reducing manual corrections and improving outcomes for patients with compromised periodontium.
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.