ArticleJournal of dental sciences2026
Accuracy of digital impressions captured by an intraoral scanner in a partially edentulous mandible.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 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
Background/purpose: The effectiveness of intraoral scanners in accurately recording partially edentulous mandibles is still under scrutiny. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner in a partially edentulous mandibular arch. Materials and methods: A partially edentulous typodont model with missing five teeth was digitally scanned using a calibrated desktop scanner to create a reference model. The scan was saved as a standard tessellation language (STL) file and used as the control dataset. The same typodont model was then scanned 20 times using an intraoral scanner (IOS), with each digital impression exported in STL format. All datasets were analyzed using a best-fit registration algorithm in specialized software to compare the IOS scans against the reference model. Results: Three-dimensional positional deviations were analyzed, which quantified the average deviation between the scanned data and the control model, indicating accuracy. Tooth 37 (lower left second molar) had the lowest mean deviation (49.75 ± 10.05 μm), while tooth 45 (lower right second premolar) showed the highest (54.35 ± 7.23 μm). Moderate deviations were noted in teeth 34 (lower left first premolar) and 45 (lower right second premolar), with tooth 37 (lower left second molar) demonstrating the greatest variability. Statistical analysis of the datasets for teeth 34, 37, and 45 revealed no significant differences among them (p Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that the intraoral scanner evaluated is capable of generating digital impressions with clinically acceptable accuracy in partially edentulous mandibular arches.
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.