ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2026
Influence of margin level and finish line geometry on the trueness of digital scans.
Article in The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the influence of margin level and finish line geometry on the trueness of digital impressions obtained with different intraoral scanners (IOS). MATERIALS AND
methodsSix maxillary molar crown preparations were designed combining two margin levels (supragingival and subgingival) and three finish line designs (shoulder, chamfer, rounded shoulder). Models were fabricated using high-resolution three-dimensional printing. Each model was scanned 12 times with four IOS systems (Medit i700, Primescan, Trios 3, and Trios 5), generating 288 datasets. Reference scans were obtained using a laboratory scanner. Trueness was quantified using root mean square (RMS) deviation in accordance with ISO 5725-1. Data were analyzed using Robust analysis of variance and Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests (α = .05).
resultsScanner type, finish line design, and margin level significantly affected trueness (
conclusionDigital scan trueness is significantly influenced by preparation geometry and margin location. Rounded shoulder designs and supragingival margins provide more reliable digital outcomes. Careful selection of finish line configuration and scanner technology is critical for optimizing marginal accuracy in digital restorative workflows.
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.