ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Effect of 3D superimposition software on intraoral scanner accuracy and monitoring outcome.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine whether 3D superimposition software ("Apps") systematically affects 3D deviation outcomes derived from intraoral scanner (IOS) data, using two quantile‑range accuracy metrics (Q90_Q10_half and Q95_Q05_half). MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo jaw‑sized reference models were digitized with a high‑resolution optical scanner (ATOS III) to generate reference STL meshes (REF_STL). Five IOS devices acquired ten scans per device and per jaw model, exported as STL meshes (IMP_STL): Emerald Green, iTero 5D, Medit i900, Primescan, and Trios 5. Each IMP_STL was trimmed (1 mm above gingival line) and superimposed to REF_STL in four Apps: commercial industrial software: Geomagic Control X and GOM Inspect, and open dentistry-focused software Medit Design (Compare) and Dentexion; resulting in total to N = 400 superimpositions. For each superimposition, Q90_Q10_half and Q95_Q05_half values were computed from point-wise signed surface distances. A linear mixed‑effects model tested factor App as fixed effect with random intercepts for factors Device and Jaw, followed by Bonferroni‑adjusted pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05).
resultsApp significantly influenced Q90_Q10_half (p < 0.01) and Q95_Q05_half (p < 0.001). Control X yielded higher adjusted means than Dentexion and Compare for Q90_Q10_half (both p < 0.01), while Dentexion, GOM, and Compare did not differ. For Q95_Q05_half, Control X exceeded all other Apps (all p < 0.01). Notably, IOS rankings were stable across Apps, indicating that software altered magnitude but not relative ordering.
conclusionsEvaluation software is a significant source of variability in 3D deviation metrics; Control X produced consistently higher (more conservative) quantile‑range values, particularly for Q95_Q05_half. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Inter‑study comparisons in digital accuracy research should report the evaluation software and settings. Dentistry‑focused Apps (e.g., with automated tooth segmentation) may reduce operator‑dependent effects and facilitate clinically applicable monitoring.
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.