MEDIUMResearchTier 1
Corrigendum to “evaluating the accuracy of 16 intraoral scanners against 3 laboratory
SourceJournal of DentistryTier 1Peer-Reviewed Research
Originally at sciencedirect.com
Summary & scoring by The Bell Brief (Dr. Jennifer Bell) using the Drill-Down Protocol (Drill-Down Score) — not the original publisher.
Why it matters for dental
This corrigendum corrects a peer-reviewed accuracy study comparing 16 intraoral scanners to laboratory scanners and conventional impressions for partial implant cases; owners and specialists who rely on scanner accuracy for implant prosthetics need to verify which scanner models were affected by the corrections before adopting or continuing clinical use.
Key points
- The original paper evaluated 16 intraoral scanners in an in vitro partial-implant model against 3 laboratory scanners and 2 conventional impression techniques.
- A corrigendum published in Journal of Dentistry Volume 175 (December 2026) alters the published data; clinicians using any of the tested scanners should review the updated findings.
- Implant prosthetics require ≤50 µm accuracy for passive fit; any scanner whose reported trueness/precision changed in the corrigendum may now fall above or below this threshold.
- Specialists and DSOs evaluating capital equipment purchases can reference the corrected dataset to narrow scanner selection before committing budget.
Who should care
SpecialistOwnerDSOAcademia
Read the original on Journal of Dentistry
Full reporting and any paywall content live on sciencedirect.com. We summarize and score; we do not republish.