Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison
Background Several studies have evaluated accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS), but data is lacking regarding variations between IOS systems in the depiction of the critical finish line and the finish line accuracy. The aim of this study was to analyze the level of finish line distinctness (FLD), an...
Saved in:
| Published in: | BMC oral health Vol. 18; no. 1; p. 27 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
London
BioMed Central
23.02.2018
BioMed Central Ltd |
| Subjects: | |
| ISSN: | 1472-6831, 1472-6831 |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Abstract | Background
Several studies have evaluated accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS), but data is lacking regarding variations between IOS systems in the depiction of the critical finish line and the finish line accuracy. The aim of this study was to analyze the level of finish line distinctness (FLD), and finish line accuracy (FLA), in 7 intraoral scanners (IOS) and one conventional impression (IMPR). Furthermore, to assess parameters of resolution, tessellation, topography, and color.
Methods
A dental model with a crown preparation including supra and subgingival finish line was reference-scanned with an industrial scanner (ATOS), and scanned with seven IOS: 3M, CS3500 and CS3600, DWIO, Omnicam, Planscan and Trios. An IMPR was taken and poured, and the model was scanned with a laboratory scanner. The ATOS scan was cropped at finish line and best-fit aligned for 3D Compare Analysis (Geomagic). Accuracy was visualized, and descriptive analysis was performed.
Results
All IOS, except Planscan, had comparable overall accuracy, however, FLD and FLA varied substantially. Trios presented the highest FLD, and with CS3600, the highest FLA. 3M, and DWIO had low overall FLD and low FLA in subgingival areas, whilst Planscan had overall low FLD and FLA, as well as lower general accuracy. IMPR presented high FLD, except in subgingival areas, and high FLA.
Trios had the highest resolution by factor 1.6 to 3.1 among IOS, followed by IMPR, DWIO, Omnicam, CS3500, 3M, CS3600 and Planscan. Tessellation was found to be non-uniform except in 3M and DWIO. Topographic variation was found for 3M and Trios, with deviations below +/− 25 μm for Trios. Inclusion of color enhanced the identification of the finish line in Trios, Omnicam and CS3600, but not in Planscan.
Conclusions
There were sizeable variations between IOS with both higher and lower FLD and FLA than IMPR. High FLD was more related to high localized finish line resolution and non-uniform tessellation, than to high overall resolution. Topography variations were low. Color improved finish line identification in some IOS.
It is imperative that clinicians critically evaluate the digital impression, being aware of varying technical limitations among IOS, in particular when challenging subgingival conditions apply. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Background Several studies have evaluated accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS), but data is lacking regarding variations between IOS systems in the depiction of the critical finish line and the finish line accuracy. The aim of this study was to analyze the level of finish line distinctness (FLD), and finish line accuracy (FLA), in 7 intraoral scanners (IOS) and one conventional impression (IMPR). Furthermore, to assess parameters of resolution, tessellation, topography, and color. Methods A dental model with a crown preparation including supra and subgingival finish line was reference-scanned with an industrial scanner (ATOS), and scanned with seven IOS: 3M, CS3500 and CS3600, DWIO, Omnicam, Planscan and Trios. An IMPR was taken and poured, and the model was scanned with a laboratory scanner. The ATOS scan was cropped at finish line and best-fit aligned for 3D Compare Analysis (Geomagic). Accuracy was visualized, and descriptive analysis was performed. Results All IOS, except Planscan, had comparable overall accuracy, however, FLD and FLA varied substantially. Trios presented the highest FLD, and with CS3600, the highest FLA. 3M, and DWIO had low overall FLD and low FLA in subgingival areas, whilst Planscan had overall low FLD and FLA, as well as lower general accuracy. IMPR presented high FLD, except in subgingival areas, and high FLA. Trios had the highest resolution by factor 1.6 to 3.1 among IOS, followed by IMPR, DWIO, Omnicam, CS3500, 3M, CS3600 and Planscan. Tessellation was found to be non-uniform except in 3M and DWIO. Topographic variation was found for 3M and Trios, with deviations below +/- 25 [mu]m for Trios. Inclusion of color enhanced the identification of the finish line in Trios, Omnicam and CS3600, but not in Planscan. Conclusions There were sizeable variations between IOS with both higher and lower FLD and FLA than IMPR. High FLD was more related to high localized finish line resolution and non-uniform tessellation, than to high overall resolution. Topography variations were low. Color improved finish line identification in some IOS. It is imperative that clinicians critically evaluate the digital impression, being aware of varying technical limitations among IOS, in particular when challenging subgingival conditions apply. Keywords: Accuracy, Digital impression, Finish line, Intraoral scanner, 3D compare analysis Several studies have evaluated accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS), but data is lacking regarding variations between IOS systems in the depiction of the critical finish line and the finish line accuracy. The aim of this study was to analyze the level of finish line distinctness (FLD), and finish line accuracy (FLA), in 7 intraoral scanners (IOS) and one conventional impression (IMPR). Furthermore, to assess parameters of resolution, tessellation, topography, and color. A dental model with a crown preparation including supra and subgingival finish line was reference-scanned with an industrial scanner (ATOS), and scanned with seven IOS: 3M, CS3500 and CS3600, DWIO, Omnicam, Planscan and Trios. An IMPR was taken and poured, and the model was scanned with a laboratory scanner. The ATOS scan was cropped at finish line and best-fit aligned for 3D Compare Analysis (Geomagic). Accuracy was visualized, and descriptive analysis was performed. All IOS, except Planscan, had comparable overall accuracy, however, FLD and FLA varied substantially. Trios presented the highest FLD, and with CS3600, the highest FLA. 3M, and DWIO had low overall FLD and low FLA in subgingival areas, whilst Planscan had overall low FLD and FLA, as well as lower general accuracy. IMPR presented high FLD, except in subgingival areas, and high FLA. There were sizeable variations between IOS with both higher and lower FLD and FLA than IMPR. High FLD was more related to high localized finish line resolution and non-uniform tessellation, than to high overall resolution. Topography variations were low. Color improved finish line identification in some IOS. Background Several studies have evaluated accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS), but data is lacking regarding variations between IOS systems in the depiction of the critical finish line and the finish line accuracy. The aim of this study was to analyze the level of finish line distinctness (FLD), and finish line accuracy (FLA), in 7 intraoral scanners (IOS) and one conventional impression (IMPR). Furthermore, to assess parameters of resolution, tessellation, topography, and color. Methods A dental model with a crown preparation including supra and subgingival finish line was reference-scanned with an industrial scanner (ATOS), and scanned with seven IOS: 3M, CS3500 and CS3600, DWIO, Omnicam, Planscan and Trios. An IMPR was taken and poured, and the model was scanned with a laboratory scanner. The ATOS scan was cropped at finish line and best-fit aligned for 3D Compare Analysis (Geomagic). Accuracy was visualized, and descriptive analysis was performed. Results All IOS, except Planscan, had comparable overall accuracy, however, FLD and FLA varied substantially. Trios presented the highest FLD, and with CS3600, the highest FLA. 3M, and DWIO had low overall FLD and low FLA in subgingival areas, whilst Planscan had overall low FLD and FLA, as well as lower general accuracy. IMPR presented high FLD, except in subgingival areas, and high FLA. Trios had the highest resolution by factor 1.6 to 3.1 among IOS, followed by IMPR, DWIO, Omnicam, CS3500, 3M, CS3600 and Planscan. Tessellation was found to be non-uniform except in 3M and DWIO. Topographic variation was found for 3M and Trios, with deviations below +/− 25 μm for Trios. Inclusion of color enhanced the identification of the finish line in Trios, Omnicam and CS3600, but not in Planscan. Conclusions There were sizeable variations between IOS with both higher and lower FLD and FLA than IMPR. High FLD was more related to high localized finish line resolution and non-uniform tessellation, than to high overall resolution. Topography variations were low. Color improved finish line identification in some IOS. It is imperative that clinicians critically evaluate the digital impression, being aware of varying technical limitations among IOS, in particular when challenging subgingival conditions apply. Several studies have evaluated accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS), but data is lacking regarding variations between IOS systems in the depiction of the critical finish line and the finish line accuracy. The aim of this study was to analyze the level of finish line distinctness (FLD), and finish line accuracy (FLA), in 7 intraoral scanners (IOS) and one conventional impression (IMPR). Furthermore, to assess parameters of resolution, tessellation, topography, and color.BACKGROUNDSeveral studies have evaluated accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS), but data is lacking regarding variations between IOS systems in the depiction of the critical finish line and the finish line accuracy. The aim of this study was to analyze the level of finish line distinctness (FLD), and finish line accuracy (FLA), in 7 intraoral scanners (IOS) and one conventional impression (IMPR). Furthermore, to assess parameters of resolution, tessellation, topography, and color.A dental model with a crown preparation including supra and subgingival finish line was reference-scanned with an industrial scanner (ATOS), and scanned with seven IOS: 3M, CS3500 and CS3600, DWIO, Omnicam, Planscan and Trios. An IMPR was taken and poured, and the model was scanned with a laboratory scanner. The ATOS scan was cropped at finish line and best-fit aligned for 3D Compare Analysis (Geomagic). Accuracy was visualized, and descriptive analysis was performed.METHODSA dental model with a crown preparation including supra and subgingival finish line was reference-scanned with an industrial scanner (ATOS), and scanned with seven IOS: 3M, CS3500 and CS3600, DWIO, Omnicam, Planscan and Trios. An IMPR was taken and poured, and the model was scanned with a laboratory scanner. The ATOS scan was cropped at finish line and best-fit aligned for 3D Compare Analysis (Geomagic). Accuracy was visualized, and descriptive analysis was performed.All IOS, except Planscan, had comparable overall accuracy, however, FLD and FLA varied substantially. Trios presented the highest FLD, and with CS3600, the highest FLA. 3M, and DWIO had low overall FLD and low FLA in subgingival areas, whilst Planscan had overall low FLD and FLA, as well as lower general accuracy. IMPR presented high FLD, except in subgingival areas, and high FLA. Trios had the highest resolution by factor 1.6 to 3.1 among IOS, followed by IMPR, DWIO, Omnicam, CS3500, 3M, CS3600 and Planscan. Tessellation was found to be non-uniform except in 3M and DWIO. Topographic variation was found for 3M and Trios, with deviations below +/- 25 μm for Trios. Inclusion of color enhanced the identification of the finish line in Trios, Omnicam and CS3600, but not in Planscan.RESULTSAll IOS, except Planscan, had comparable overall accuracy, however, FLD and FLA varied substantially. Trios presented the highest FLD, and with CS3600, the highest FLA. 3M, and DWIO had low overall FLD and low FLA in subgingival areas, whilst Planscan had overall low FLD and FLA, as well as lower general accuracy. IMPR presented high FLD, except in subgingival areas, and high FLA. Trios had the highest resolution by factor 1.6 to 3.1 among IOS, followed by IMPR, DWIO, Omnicam, CS3500, 3M, CS3600 and Planscan. Tessellation was found to be non-uniform except in 3M and DWIO. Topographic variation was found for 3M and Trios, with deviations below +/- 25 μm for Trios. Inclusion of color enhanced the identification of the finish line in Trios, Omnicam and CS3600, but not in Planscan.There were sizeable variations between IOS with both higher and lower FLD and FLA than IMPR. High FLD was more related to high localized finish line resolution and non-uniform tessellation, than to high overall resolution. Topography variations were low. Color improved finish line identification in some IOS. It is imperative that clinicians critically evaluate the digital impression, being aware of varying technical limitations among IOS, in particular when challenging subgingival conditions apply.CONCLUSIONSThere were sizeable variations between IOS with both higher and lower FLD and FLA than IMPR. High FLD was more related to high localized finish line resolution and non-uniform tessellation, than to high overall resolution. Topography variations were low. Color improved finish line identification in some IOS. It is imperative that clinicians critically evaluate the digital impression, being aware of varying technical limitations among IOS, in particular when challenging subgingival conditions apply. Several studies have evaluated accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS), but data is lacking regarding variations between IOS systems in the depiction of the critical finish line and the finish line accuracy. The aim of this study was to analyze the level of finish line distinctness (FLD), and finish line accuracy (FLA), in 7 intraoral scanners (IOS) and one conventional impression (IMPR). Furthermore, to assess parameters of resolution, tessellation, topography, and color. A dental model with a crown preparation including supra and subgingival finish line was reference-scanned with an industrial scanner (ATOS), and scanned with seven IOS: 3M, CS3500 and CS3600, DWIO, Omnicam, Planscan and Trios. An IMPR was taken and poured, and the model was scanned with a laboratory scanner. The ATOS scan was cropped at finish line and best-fit aligned for 3D Compare Analysis (Geomagic). Accuracy was visualized, and descriptive analysis was performed. All IOS, except Planscan, had comparable overall accuracy, however, FLD and FLA varied substantially. Trios presented the highest FLD, and with CS3600, the highest FLA. 3M, and DWIO had low overall FLD and low FLA in subgingival areas, whilst Planscan had overall low FLD and FLA, as well as lower general accuracy. IMPR presented high FLD, except in subgingival areas, and high FLA. Trios had the highest resolution by factor 1.6 to 3.1 among IOS, followed by IMPR, DWIO, Omnicam, CS3500, 3M, CS3600 and Planscan. Tessellation was found to be non-uniform except in 3M and DWIO. Topographic variation was found for 3M and Trios, with deviations below +/- 25 μm for Trios. Inclusion of color enhanced the identification of the finish line in Trios, Omnicam and CS3600, but not in Planscan. There were sizeable variations between IOS with both higher and lower FLD and FLA than IMPR. High FLD was more related to high localized finish line resolution and non-uniform tessellation, than to high overall resolution. Topography variations were low. Color improved finish line identification in some IOS. It is imperative that clinicians critically evaluate the digital impression, being aware of varying technical limitations among IOS, in particular when challenging subgingival conditions apply. |
| ArticleNumber | 27 |
| Audience | Academic |
| Author | Thor, Andreas Olsson, Pontus Nyström, Ingela Nedelcu, Robert |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Robert orcidid: 0000-0002-7547-5815 surname: Nedelcu fullname: Nedelcu, Robert email: robert.nedelcu@surgsci.uu.se organization: Department of Surgical Sciences, Plastic & Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Uppsala University – sequence: 2 givenname: Pontus surname: Olsson fullname: Olsson, Pontus organization: Department of Information Technology, Centre for Image Analysis, Uppsala University – sequence: 3 givenname: Ingela surname: Nyström fullname: Nyström, Ingela organization: Department of Information Technology, Centre for Image Analysis, Uppsala University – sequence: 4 givenname: Andreas surname: Thor fullname: Thor, Andreas organization: Department of Surgical Sciences, Plastic & Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Uppsala University |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29471825$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-348983$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index (Uppsala universitet) |
| BookMark | eNp9kktv1DAUhSNURB_wA9igSGxYkGI7iR8sKo0KBaRKbICtdcexp7dK7MFOBnXHT8dRhqqDUBXpxom_c_y457Q48sHbonhJyTmlkr9LlClSV4TKijRSVfWT4oQ2glVc1vTowfi4OE3plhAqZNM8K46ZagSVrD0pfl-hx3RT9uht2WEa0ZvR25RK8F0JxkwRzF2JvhS5jBFChL5MBry3MZW7XKZUmuB31o8YfJ7EYRuzQf54n01m6Q7HGMrOJhNxO-LOZsGwhYgp-OfFUwd9si_277Pi-9XHb5efq-uvn75crq4rwykbK8cF4aTlknBjKEhBQRlYS9cKoRxfU8fWxKiOUwlMOatcDa1S0oFqgFCoz4q3i2_6ZbfTWm8jDhDvdADUH_DHSoe40dOk63yRss74xYJndrCdsfPZ-wPV4YzHG70JO91K1jRNmw3e7A1i-DnZNOoBk7F9D96GKWlGiFCSkppn9PWCbqC3Gr0L2dHMuF61THLCRDsbnv-Hyk9nB8wNsA7z_wPBq4dHuN_73-ZngC6AiSGlaN09QomeA6aXgOkcMD0HTM_3Iv7RGBxh7nzeDfaPKtm-AXkVv7FR34Yp5sCkR0R_AEEy5vw |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_019_46887_1 crossref_primary_10_3390_jcm9123937 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2024_10_011 crossref_primary_10_1111_jopr_13490 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12903_025_05852_3 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2020_10_007 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2020_08_034 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12903_023_03233_2 crossref_primary_10_3390_app12136675 crossref_primary_10_1155_2020_2920804 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12903_018_0566_7 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2023_10_026 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12903_020_01181_9 crossref_primary_10_4103_jips_jips_606_20 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2020_06_037 crossref_primary_10_1111_jopr_13633 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_022_23498_x crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2024_08_024 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_020_58075_7 crossref_primary_10_22207_JPAM_12_2_46 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40496_020_00285_z crossref_primary_10_1186_s12903_019_0792_7 crossref_primary_10_3390_jcm14145093 crossref_primary_10_1155_2022_1637594 crossref_primary_10_3390_prosthesis4020023 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12903_025_06446_9 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jdent_2021_103706 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2020_07_017 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2019_04_020 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2020_12_044 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jdent_2022_104406 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2020_01_027 crossref_primary_10_2186_jpr_JPR_D_21_00081 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2020_09_019 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_sdentj_2024_09_008 crossref_primary_10_3390_app8101838 crossref_primary_10_1111_jopr_13148 crossref_primary_10_3390_prosthesis5040081 crossref_primary_10_3390_healthcare9020118 crossref_primary_10_3390_app10249140 crossref_primary_10_1111_jerd_12527 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jdent_2024_105492 crossref_primary_10_1080_03036758_2019_1691612 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jdent_2024_105386 crossref_primary_10_17656_sdj_10095 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jdent_2024_104851 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2019_12_010 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2020_05_011 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2025_07_026 crossref_primary_10_1111_jopr_13264 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph15122623 crossref_primary_10_1136_bcr_2024_264082 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_021_93455_7 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2025_05_040 crossref_primary_10_3390_medicina59112037 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40496_019_00245_2 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jdent_2022_104090 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jdent_2022_104381 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_sdentj_2023_03_002 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jdent_2024_104943 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0301361 crossref_primary_10_1186_s40729_023_00481_3 crossref_primary_10_3390_ma12121958 crossref_primary_10_3390_met10060827 crossref_primary_10_1111_jopr_13443 crossref_primary_10_3390_met10060788 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jdent_2025_105740 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2023_09_039 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2022_05_035 crossref_primary_10_1155_2021_8891396 crossref_primary_10_51479_cspzl_2023_005 crossref_primary_10_2341_24_024_L crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2025_03_037 crossref_primary_10_3390_biomimetics8050394 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jdent_2022_104308 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_dental_2020_03_001 crossref_primary_10_3390_jcm13226810 crossref_primary_10_1111_adj_12748 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph16050829 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph17020392 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12903_020_01336_8 crossref_primary_10_3390_diagnostics13213291 crossref_primary_10_3390_app10217762 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_adaj_2019_10_022 crossref_primary_10_1111_jerd_13419 crossref_primary_10_3390_ani12233256 crossref_primary_10_3390_app12083710 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00784_025_06245_0 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2025_05_008 crossref_primary_10_2196_17150 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2021_01_029 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jmbbm_2023_105975 crossref_primary_10_4103_jips_jips_327_19 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12903_020_01278_1 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0252171 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph16040544 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_021_95103_6 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph15112523 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ddj_2025_100039 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph17124276 crossref_primary_10_1111_jcpe_13235 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12903_022_02176_4 crossref_primary_10_3390_ma13071744 crossref_primary_10_1111_jerd_13364 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph18031121 crossref_primary_10_3390_app14177731 crossref_primary_10_1109_ACCESS_2020_3014315 |
| Cites_doi | 10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y 10.1016/j.dental.2009.01.100 10.1007/978-1-84628-856-2 10.1007/s00784-016-1902-4 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.021 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.024 10.1111/jopr.12527 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1 10.14219/jada.archive.2010.0354 10.1038/sj.bdj.4802708 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.028 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.10.002 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0398 10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x 10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4 10.4047/jap.2016.8.5.354 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.12.006 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.04.008 10.1111/jopr.12218 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | The Author(s). 2018 COPYRIGHT 2018 BioMed Central Ltd. |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: The Author(s). 2018 – notice: COPYRIGHT 2018 BioMed Central Ltd. |
| DBID | C6C AAYXX CITATION NPM 7X8 5PM ACNBI ADTPV AOWAS D8T DF2 ZZAVC |
| DOI | 10.1186/s12903-018-0489-3 |
| DatabaseName | Springer Nature OA Free Journals CrossRef PubMed MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) SWEPUB Uppsala universitet full text SwePub SwePub Articles SWEPUB Freely available online SWEPUB Uppsala universitet SwePub Articles full text |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic PubMed |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine Dentistry |
| EISSN | 1472-6831 |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_DiVA_org_uu_348983 PMC5824445 A528602755 29471825 10_1186_s12903_018_0489_3 |
| Genre | Journal Article |
| GroupedDBID | --- 0R~ 23N 2WC 34H 53G 5GY 5VS 6J9 6PF 7X7 88E 8FE 8FH 8FI 8FJ AAFWJ AAJSJ AASML AAWTL ABUWG ACGFO ACGFS ACPRK ADBBV ADFRT ADRAZ ADUKV AENEX AFKRA AFPKN AHBYD AHMBA AHYZX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMKLP AMTXH AOIJS BAPOH BAWUL BBNVY BCNDV BENPR BFQNJ BHPHI BMC BPHCQ BVXVI C6C CCPQU CS3 DIK DU5 E3Z EBD EBLON EBS EJD F5P FYUFA GROUPED_DOAJ GX1 H13 HCIFZ HMCUK HYE IAO IHR INH INR ITC IVC KQ8 LK8 M1P M48 M7P M~E O5R O5S OK1 OVT P2P PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PJZUB PPXIY PQGLB PQQKQ PROAC PSQYO PUEGO RBZ RNS ROL RPM RSV SMD SOJ TR2 UKHRP W2D WOQ WOW XSB AAYXX AFFHD CITATION -A0 3V. ACRMQ ADINQ ALIPV C24 NPM 7X8 5PM 2VQ 4.4 ACNBI ADTPV AHSBF AOWAS C1A D8T DF2 IPNFZ RIG ZZAVC |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c612t-f6706056806cc1a871a9cab8f5779f6b1f2b0c9d618a29fe9f3a5998fa94a01a3 |
| IEDL.DBID | RSV |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 130 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000426323900001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1472-6831 |
| IngestDate | Tue Nov 04 16:31:59 EST 2025 Tue Nov 04 01:55:27 EST 2025 Thu Sep 04 19:39:06 EDT 2025 Tue Nov 11 10:13:16 EST 2025 Tue Nov 04 18:03:09 EST 2025 Wed Feb 19 02:44:32 EST 2025 Tue Nov 18 22:18:46 EST 2025 Sat Nov 29 03:04:20 EST 2025 Sat Sep 06 07:29:57 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 1 |
| Keywords | Digital impression Accuracy Intraoral scanner Finish line 3D compare analysis |
| Language | English |
| License | Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c612t-f6706056806cc1a871a9cab8f5779f6b1f2b0c9d618a29fe9f3a5998fa94a01a3 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-7547-5815 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://link.springer.com/10.1186/s12903-018-0489-3 |
| PMID | 29471825 |
| PQID | 2007981036 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | swepub_primary_oai_DiVA_org_uu_348983 pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5824445 proquest_miscellaneous_2007981036 gale_infotracmisc_A528602755 gale_infotracacademiconefile_A528602755 pubmed_primary_29471825 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12903_018_0489_3 crossref_citationtrail_10_1186_s12903_018_0489_3 springer_journals_10_1186_s12903_018_0489_3 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2018-02-23 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2018-02-23 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 02 year: 2018 text: 2018-02-23 day: 23 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | London |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: London – name: England |
| PublicationSubtitle | BMC series – open, inclusive and trusted |
| PublicationTitle | BMC oral health |
| PublicationTitleAbbrev | BMC Oral Health |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | BMC Oral Health |
| PublicationYear | 2018 |
| Publisher | BioMed Central BioMed Central Ltd |
| Publisher_xml | – name: BioMed Central – name: BioMed Central Ltd |
| References | 489_CR21 489_CR23 WH Mormann (489_CR1) 2006; 137 M Zimmermann (489_CR4) 2015; 18 A Ender (489_CR13) 2015; 46 SB Patzelt (489_CR14) 2014; 18 F Kuhr (489_CR16) 2016; 55 JM Park (489_CR19) 2016; 8 RG Nedelcu (489_CR9) 2014; 112 A Ender (489_CR12) 2013; 109 W Renne (489_CR6) 2017; 118 A Ender (489_CR11) 2011; 14 S Ting-Shu (489_CR5) 2015; 24 489_CR15 P Tsirogiannis (489_CR22) 2016; 116 JJ Lee (489_CR25) 2017; 117 M Imburgia (489_CR7) 2017; 17 JF Guth (489_CR20) 2017; 21 WH Mormann (489_CR2) 2000; 31 A Mehl (489_CR10) 2009; 12 V Raja (489_CR17) 2008 JW McLean (489_CR24) 1971; 131 AS Persson (489_CR8) 2009; 25 DJ Fasbinder (489_CR3) 2010; 141 F Mangano (489_CR18) 2017; 17 H Li (489_CR26) 2017; 117 28024822 - J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Jul;118(1):36-42 27666500 - J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Feb;117(2):253-259 16950932 - J Am Dent Assoc. 2006 Sep;137 Suppl:7S-13S 25134995 - J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Dec;112(6):1461-71 27460324 - J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Jan;117(1):93-101 28577366 - BMC Oral Health. 2017 Jun 2;17 (1):92 27717754 - J Dent. 2016 Dec;55:68-74 27483210 - J Prosthodont. 2018 Jan;27(1):35-41 21657122 - Int J Comput Dent. 2011;14(1):11-21 5283545 - Br Dent J. 1971 Aug 3;131(3):107-11 25019118 - Quintessence Int. 2015 Jan;46(1):9-17 26110925 - Int J Comput Dent. 2015;18(2):101-29 19264353 - Dent Mater. 2009 Jul;25(7):929-36 29233132 - BMC Oral Health. 2017 Dec 12;17 (1):149 24240949 - Clin Oral Investig. 2014 Jul;18(6):1687-94 20516107 - J Am Dent Assoc. 2010 Jun;141 Suppl 2:3S-4S 25220390 - J Prosthodont. 2015 Jun;24(4):313-21 29246490 - J Dent. 2018 Feb;69:110-118 11203997 - Quintessence Int. 2000 Nov-Dec;31(10):699-712 27406138 - Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Jun;21(5):1445-1455 27826385 - J Adv Prosthodont. 2016 Oct;8(5):354-362 19213357 - Int J Comput Dent. 2009;12(1):11-28 27061627 - J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Sep;116(3):328-335.e2 23395338 - J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Feb;109(2):121-8 |
| References_xml | – volume: 18 start-page: 1687 issue: 6 year: 2014 ident: 489_CR14 publication-title: Clin Oral Investig doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y – volume: 25 start-page: 929 issue: 7 year: 2009 ident: 489_CR8 publication-title: Dent Mater doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.01.100 – volume-title: FK: reverse engineering: an industrial perspective year: 2008 ident: 489_CR17 doi: 10.1007/978-1-84628-856-2 – volume: 21 start-page: 1445 issue: 5 year: 2017 ident: 489_CR20 publication-title: Clin Oral Investig doi: 10.1007/s00784-016-1902-4 – volume: 117 start-page: 253 issue: 2 year: 2017 ident: 489_CR25 publication-title: J Prosthet Dent doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.021 – volume: 118 start-page: 36 issue: 1 year: 2017 ident: 489_CR6 publication-title: J Prosthet Dent doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.024 – ident: 489_CR23 doi: 10.1111/jopr.12527 – volume: 109 start-page: 121 issue: 2 year: 2013 ident: 489_CR12 publication-title: J Prosthet Dent doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1 – volume: 31 start-page: 699 issue: 10 year: 2000 ident: 489_CR2 publication-title: Quintessence Int – volume: 141 start-page: 3S issue: Suppl 2 year: 2010 ident: 489_CR3 publication-title: J Am Dent Assoc doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2010.0354 – volume: 131 start-page: 107 issue: 3 year: 1971 ident: 489_CR24 publication-title: Br Dent J doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4802708 – ident: 489_CR21 – volume: 46 start-page: 9 issue: 1 year: 2015 ident: 489_CR13 publication-title: Quintessence Int – volume: 12 start-page: 11 issue: 1 year: 2009 ident: 489_CR10 publication-title: Int J Comput Dent – volume: 116 start-page: 328 issue: 3 year: 2016 ident: 489_CR22 publication-title: J Prosthet Dent doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.028 – volume: 55 start-page: 68 year: 2016 ident: 489_CR16 publication-title: J Dent doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.10.002 – volume: 14 start-page: 11 issue: 1 year: 2011 ident: 489_CR11 publication-title: Int J Comput Dent – volume: 137 start-page: 7S issue: Suppl year: 2006 ident: 489_CR1 publication-title: J Am Dent Assoc doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0398 – volume: 17 start-page: 149 issue: 1 year: 2017 ident: 489_CR18 publication-title: BMC Oral Health doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x – volume: 17 start-page: 92 issue: 1 year: 2017 ident: 489_CR7 publication-title: BMC Oral Health doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4 – volume: 8 start-page: 354 issue: 5 year: 2016 ident: 489_CR19 publication-title: J Adv Prosthodont doi: 10.4047/jap.2016.8.5.354 – ident: 489_CR15 doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.12.006 – volume: 18 start-page: 101 issue: 2 year: 2015 ident: 489_CR4 publication-title: Int J Comput Dent – volume: 112 start-page: 1461 issue: 6 year: 2014 ident: 489_CR9 publication-title: J Prosthet Dent doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027 – volume: 117 start-page: 93 issue: 1 year: 2017 ident: 489_CR26 publication-title: J Prosthet Dent doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.04.008 – volume: 24 start-page: 313 issue: 4 year: 2015 ident: 489_CR5 publication-title: J Prosthodont doi: 10.1111/jopr.12218 – reference: 27717754 - J Dent. 2016 Dec;55:68-74 – reference: 26110925 - Int J Comput Dent. 2015;18(2):101-29 – reference: 28577366 - BMC Oral Health. 2017 Jun 2;17 (1):92 – reference: 21657122 - Int J Comput Dent. 2011;14(1):11-21 – reference: 28024822 - J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Jul;118(1):36-42 – reference: 27406138 - Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Jun;21(5):1445-1455 – reference: 23395338 - J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Feb;109(2):121-8 – reference: 29233132 - BMC Oral Health. 2017 Dec 12;17 (1):149 – reference: 16950932 - J Am Dent Assoc. 2006 Sep;137 Suppl:7S-13S – reference: 11203997 - Quintessence Int. 2000 Nov-Dec;31(10):699-712 – reference: 25134995 - J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Dec;112(6):1461-71 – reference: 27826385 - J Adv Prosthodont. 2016 Oct;8(5):354-362 – reference: 25220390 - J Prosthodont. 2015 Jun;24(4):313-21 – reference: 27460324 - J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Jan;117(1):93-101 – reference: 25019118 - Quintessence Int. 2015 Jan;46(1):9-17 – reference: 5283545 - Br Dent J. 1971 Aug 3;131(3):107-11 – reference: 19264353 - Dent Mater. 2009 Jul;25(7):929-36 – reference: 29246490 - J Dent. 2018 Feb;69:110-118 – reference: 27666500 - J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Feb;117(2):253-259 – reference: 19213357 - Int J Comput Dent. 2009;12(1):11-28 – reference: 24240949 - Clin Oral Investig. 2014 Jul;18(6):1687-94 – reference: 20516107 - J Am Dent Assoc. 2010 Jun;141 Suppl 2:3S-4S – reference: 27061627 - J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Sep;116(3):328-335.e2 – reference: 27483210 - J Prosthodont. 2018 Jan;27(1):35-41 |
| SSID | ssj0017844 |
| Score | 2.502972 |
| Snippet | Background
Several studies have evaluated accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS), but data is lacking regarding variations between IOS systems in the depiction... Several studies have evaluated accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS), but data is lacking regarding variations between IOS systems in the depiction of the... Background Several studies have evaluated accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS), but data is lacking regarding variations between IOS systems in the depiction... |
| SourceID | swepub pubmedcentral proquest gale pubmed crossref springer |
| SourceType | Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
| StartPage | 27 |
| SubjectTerms | Comparative analysis Computerized Image Processing Datoriserad bildbehandling Dental equipment Dentistry Diagnostic imaging Digital Dentistry Digital scanners Equipment and supplies Health aspects Medicine Methods Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Research Article |
| Title | Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison |
| URI | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12903-018-0489-3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29471825 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2007981036 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC5824445 https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-348983 |
| Volume | 18 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000426323900001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVADU databaseName: BioMedCentral customDbUrl: eissn: 1472-6831 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017844 issn: 1472-6831 databaseCode: RBZ dateStart: 20010101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.biomedcentral.com/search/ providerName: BioMedCentral – providerCode: PRVAON databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals customDbUrl: eissn: 1472-6831 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017844 issn: 1472-6831 databaseCode: DOA dateStart: 20010101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.doaj.org/ providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – providerCode: PRVHPJ databaseName: ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources customDbUrl: eissn: 1472-6831 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017844 issn: 1472-6831 databaseCode: M~E dateStart: 20010101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://road.issn.org providerName: ISSN International Centre – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Biological Science Database customDbUrl: eissn: 1472-6831 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017844 issn: 1472-6831 databaseCode: M7P dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://search.proquest.com/biologicalscijournals providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Health & Medical Collection customDbUrl: eissn: 1472-6831 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017844 issn: 1472-6831 databaseCode: 7X7 dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/healthcomplete providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: ProQuest Central customDbUrl: eissn: 1472-6831 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017844 issn: 1472-6831 databaseCode: BENPR dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.proquest.com/central providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Publicly Available Content Database customDbUrl: eissn: 1472-6831 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017844 issn: 1472-6831 databaseCode: PIMPY dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://search.proquest.com/publiccontent providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVAVX databaseName: SpringerLink customDbUrl: eissn: 1472-6831 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017844 issn: 1472-6831 databaseCode: RSV dateStart: 20011201 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://link.springer.com/search?facet-content-type=%22Journal%22 providerName: Springer Nature |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Lj9MwELbYXQRceCyvwlIZCYQEikichx1uhd0KDltVPFblZDljh40EKUqaStz46cykabSp0EpwySH2OI79eTzjGc8w9gyCzOZ54jyrjPUikynP2Mh5iUNGiPpIZCLTJpuQs5laLNJ5d4-73nq7b02SLadul7VKXtd0YkK-P8pD1KVeuMcOYgo2Qyr6p7PedCBVFHXmy7-SDTagXTZ8YR_a9ZHsDaU7QUXbjWh6679-4Ta72cmdfLIByh12xZWH7Pox-QpRurdDdu20s7LfZb-nFG_knJMEyi0xgRJWxBK5KS03AE1l4BcvSi7xgf2mW_68xkkqUZjk5OjR1PyiPzsvfnQOt-UbbIRI18WqWnLrOra1dhz6lIj32Jfpyed3770uU4MHKCGtvDyhIDxxovwEIDCohJkUcN7zWMo0T7IgF5kPqU0CZUSauzQPTYyKXm4QDH5gwvtsv1yW7iHjEFhIwReQoagHxqoEfOUkSp0CP5HbEfO306ehC2NO2TS-61adUYnejLLGUdY0yjocsZc9yc9NDI_LKr8gTGha39gumO6aAvaOImXpSSwobZeM4xE7GtTEdQmD4qdbVGkqIme20i2bmjJ_ylQFKDuM2IMNyvp-iZSkBYHUcoC_vgKFAx-WlMV5GxY8ViiqRUj5ags-3fGj-rLffb4B8-ADx8XZRC-rb7ppdIj1VPjon1p9zG6IFuXCE-ER219VjXvCrsIaMV2N2Z5cyPapxuzg7cls_nHcnoWMyfN2ju_mH07nX8ftuv4DbXZG7g |
| linkProvider | Springer Nature |
| linkToHtml | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3da9RAEF-0ivXFj2r1tOoKilAJ5nOz8e2wHhXbQ7CWvi2b2V0bqDlJLge--ac7k-RCc0hBX_KyO_v529mZzOwMY68gyI1zwnpGauPFOpeeNrH1hEVGiPpIrGPdJptI53N5dpZ96d9x12tv97VJsuXU7bGW4l1Nf0zI90d6iLrMi66zGzFl2SEV_evpYDpIZRz35su_ko0uoE02fOke2vSRHAylG0FF24todve_pnCP3enlTj7tgHKfXbPlDts-IF8hSve2w24d91b2B-z3jOKNnHOSQLkhJlDCklgi16XhGqCpNPziRclT_OC46ZU_r3GTShQmOTl6NDW_7M_Oix-9w235Hhsh0lWxrBbc2J5trSyHISXiQ_Zt9vHkw6HXZ2rwACWkpecEBeFJhPQFQKBRCdMZ4L67JE0zJ_LAhbkPmRGB1GHmbOYinaCi5zSCwQ90tMu2ykVpHzMOgYEM_BByFPVAGynAlzZFqTPELpyZMH-9fQr6MOaUTeNCteqMFKpbZYWrrGiVVTRh-wPJzy6Gx1WV3xAmFJ1vbBd0_0wBR0eRstQ0CSltV5okE7Y3qonnEkbFL9eoUlREzmylXTQ1Zf5MMxmg7DBhjzqUDeMKM5IWQqROR_gbKlA48HFJWZy3YcETiaJajJRv1-BTPT-qr5ru6w7Mow4OitOpWlTfVdOoCOvJ6Mk_tfqCbR-eHB-po0_zz0_Z7bBFfOiF0R7bWlaNfcZuwgrxXT1vz-4f8cpCzQ |
| linkToPdf | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1LixQxEA66yurFx_oaXTWCIqw02-9OexscB0UdFh_L3kK6krgDmlmmuwe8-dOt6hfbgyyIl7kkle6kv1Sqpr5UMfYcgkJbmxpPC6W9WBXCUzo2XmpQEaI_EqtYNcUmssVCnJzkR12d07Jnu_chyfZOA2VpctXhmbbtFhfpYUn_nhAPSHiIwNyLLrMrMToyxOn6_OV4CCNkIo67UOZfxUaH0bZKPncmbfMlh6DpVoLR5lCa3_zv6dxiNzp7lE9bAN1ml4zbY9dmxCGiMnB7bPdTF32_w37PKQ_JKSfLlGtSDg4qUpVcOc0VQL1W8IsvHc_wB-dAt_95iR_PoZHJiQBSl_w8z50vf3ZEXPcaByHRzbJar7g2nTrbGA5DqcS77Nv87dc377yugoMHaDlVnk0pOU-SCj8FCBQ6ZyoHxINNsiy3aRHYsPAh12kgVJhbk9tIJegAWoUg8QMV3WM7buXMA8Yh0JCDH0KBJiAoLVLwhcnQGg3xEVZPmN9_SgldenOqsvFDNm6OSGW7yhJXWdIqy2jCDgaRsza3x0WdXxI-JO17HBdUd30B344yaMlpElI5ryxJJmx_1BP3K4yan_UIk9REJDdnVnVJFUGzXARoU0zY_RZxw3uFOVkRIUpnIywOHShN-LjFLU-bdOGJQBMuRslXPRBlp6fKi6b7ogX26AGz5fFUrtbfZV3LCPuJ6OE_jfqU7R7N5vLj-8WHR-x62AA-9MJon-1U69o8Zldhg_BeP2m28R8Hz0ux |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Finish+line+distinctness+and+accuracy+in+7+intraoral+scanners+versus+conventional+impression%3A+an+in+vitro+descriptive+comparison&rft.jtitle=BMC+oral+health&rft.au=Nedelcu%2C+Robert&rft.au=Olsson%2C+Pontus&rft.au=Nystr%C3%B6m%2C+Ingela&rft.au=Thor%2C+Andreas&rft.date=2018-02-23&rft.pub=BioMed+Central+Ltd&rft.issn=1472-6831&rft.eissn=1472-6831&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=1&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186%2Fs12903-018-0489-3&rft.externalDocID=A528602755 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1472-6831&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1472-6831&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1472-6831&client=summon |