What does this research mean for the field?

Increasing pulp chamber depth negatively affects cavity base scanning accuracy while improving axial region accuracy, with deep premolar preparations presenting the most challenging condition for accurate digital acquisition. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate the influence of pulp chamber depth, tooth type, and intraoral scanner brand on the scanning accuracy of endocrown preparations.

August 28, 2026Journal of Esthetic and Restorative DentistryOpen Access

Comparative Evaluation of Tooth Type and Pulp Chamber Depth on the Accuracy of Endocrown Scans Acquired Using Various Intraoral Scanners

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

SESelen Erkul ZÖZeynep Özkurt‐Kayahan YÖYunus Emre Özden

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

In vitro study shows that increased cavity depth reduces intraoral scan accuracy at the cavity base in premolars, suggesting specific anatomical limitations for digital endocrown impressions.

Key Points

To evaluate the influence of pulp chamber depth, tooth type, and intraoral scanner brand on the scanning accuracy of endocrown preparations.
Standardized endocrown preparations with 2 mm and 5 mm pulp chamber depths were performed on molar and premolar typodonts.
Digital impressions were acquired using three intraoral scanners (Dexis, iTero, and 3Shape) and compared to laboratory reference scans via best-fit alignment for cavity base and axial regions.
Differences in scanning accuracy across scanner types, tooth positions, and depths were evaluated using Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn post hoc tests (α = 0.05).
Scanning accuracy was significantly affected by pulp chamber depth, tooth type, and intraoral scanner model (p < 0.05).
Premolar preparations with a 5 mm depth showed the highest cavity base deviations (99.5–107.2 μm), while greater depth reduced deviations in the axial region.
At the axial region of 5 mm molar preparations, iTero achieved the lowest deviation (28.2 μm), whereas Dexis and iTero demonstrated comparable accuracy at the cavity base.

Cite This Study

Erkul et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a91467bd15324a1df3aa1bc https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.70253

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

August 28, 2026Journal of Esthetic and Restorative DentistryOpen Access

Comparative Evaluation of Tooth Type and Pulp Chamber Depth on the Accuracy of Endocrown Scans Acquired Using Various Intraoral Scanners

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

SESelen Erkul ZÖZeynep Özkurt‐Kayahan YÖYunus Emre Özden

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

In vitro study shows that increased cavity depth reduces intraoral scan accuracy at the cavity base in premolars, suggesting specific anatomical limitations for digital endocrown impressions.

Key Points

To evaluate the influence of pulp chamber depth, tooth type, and intraoral scanner brand on the scanning accuracy of endocrown preparations.
Standardized endocrown preparations with 2 mm and 5 mm pulp chamber depths were performed on molar and premolar typodonts.
Digital impressions were acquired using three intraoral scanners (Dexis, iTero, and 3Shape) and compared to laboratory reference scans via best-fit alignment for cavity base and axial regions.
Differences in scanning accuracy across scanner types, tooth positions, and depths were evaluated using Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn post hoc tests (α = 0.05).
Scanning accuracy was significantly affected by pulp chamber depth, tooth type, and intraoral scanner model (p < 0.05).
Premolar preparations with a 5 mm depth showed the highest cavity base deviations (99.5–107.2 μm), while greater depth reduced deviations in the axial region.
At the axial region of 5 mm molar preparations, iTero achieved the lowest deviation (28.2 μm), whereas Dexis and iTero demonstrated comparable accuracy at the cavity base.

Cite This Study

Erkul et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a91467bd15324a1df3aa1bc https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.70253

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark