ArticleBMC oral health2019
Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
95 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of factors impacting intraoral scanning accuracy in implant dentistry with emphasis on scan bodies.International journal of implant dentistry · 2024Pooled it
- Accuracy of digital implant impressions obtained using intraoral scanners: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo studies.International journal of implant dentistry · 2023Pooled it
- 3D Scanners in Orthodontics-Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives-A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Two Implant Placement Techniques in Sinus Region (Bone Graft versus Computer-Aided Implant Surgery): A Randomized Prospective Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Trial
- Influence of arch form on the accuracy of digital workflow in all-on-four implant rehabilitation cases (an in vitro study).BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Influence of Scan Body Geometry, Implant Angulation, and Interimplant Distance on the Accuracy of Maxillary Full-Arch Digital Implant Scans: An In Vitro Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Modified Reverse Scan Technique for Abutment Teeth.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Impact of dentition alignment, scanning strategy and operator experience on the accuracy and time of intraoral scanning: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Accuracy and Reproducibility of Digital Vertical Dimension Increase in Occlusal Splint Design: A Comparative In Vitro Study of Three CAD Software Systems.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- The Trueness between Conventional Impression and Different Intraoral Scanners for All-on-4 Implants: An In vitro Comparative Study.European journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Effect of Implant Angulation on Digital Impression Accuracy of Three-Unit Implant-Supported Restorations.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Influence of restorative material types on 3D printed aligner accuracy using intraoral scanners.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Digital impression accuracy of a novel scannable healing abutment: an in vitro study with three intraoral scanners.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- PEEK Intraoral Scan Bodies-A Scoping Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Clinical Evaluation of Accuracy and Speed Across Three Intraoral Scanners.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Accuracy of digital impressions for implant fixed dental prostheses in partial and complete maxillary edentulous arches: effect of intraoral scanners and implant position.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impressions using conventional scanbodies, ScanTransfers, and splinted ScanTransfers: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Accuracy of master casts fabricated for "all on 4" and "all on 6" implant situation in maxillary arch as influenced by the number of digital scan bodies: An in vitro comparative study.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society · 2026Article
- Marginal fit of titanium and zirconia abutments: Micro-CT analysis.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Treatment Planning in an Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation in the Esthetic Zone.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
backgroundUntil now, a few studies have addressed the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) in implantology. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess the accuracy of 5 different IOSs in the impressions of single and multiple implants, and to compare them.
methodsPlaster models were prepared, representative of a partially edentulous maxilla (PEM) to be restored with a single crown (SC) and a partial prosthesis (PP), and a totally edentulous maxilla (TEM) to be restored with a full-arch (FA). These models were scanned with a desktop scanner, to capture reference models (RMs), and with 5 IOSs (CS 3600®, Trios3®, Omnicam®, DWIO®, Emerald®); 10 scans were taken for each model, using each IOS. All IOS datasets were loaded into a reverse-engineering software where they were superimposed on the corresponding RMs, to evaluate trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to determine precision. A statistical analysis was performed.
resultsIn the SC, CS 3600® had the best trueness (15.2 ± 0.8 μm), followed by Trios3® (22.3 ± 0.5 μm), DWIO® (27.8 ± 3.2 μm), Omnicam® (28.4 ± 4.5 μm), Emerald® (43.1 ± 11.5 μm). In the PP, CS 3600® had the best trueness (23 ± 1.1 μm), followed by Trios3® (28.5 ± 0.5 μm), Omnicam® (38.1 ± 8.8 μm), Emerald® (49.3 ± 5.5 μm), DWIO® (49.8 ± 5 μm). In the FA, CS 3600® had the best trueness (44.9 ± 8.9 μm), followed by Trios3® (46.3 ± 4.9 μm), Emerald® (66.3 ± 5.6 μm), Omnicam® (70.4 ± 11.9 μm), DWIO® (92.1 ± 24.1 μm). Significant differences were found between the IOSs; a significant difference in trueness was found between the contexts (SC vs. PP vs. FA). In the SC, CS 3600® had the best precision (11.3 ± 1.1 μm), followed by Trios3® (15.2 ± 0.8 μm), DWIO® (27.1 ± 10.7 μm), Omnicam® (30.6 ± 3.3 μm), Emerald® (32.8 ± 10.7 μm). In the PP, CS 3600® had the best precision (17 ± 2.3 μm), followed by Trios3® (21 ± 1.9 μm), Emerald® (29.9 ± 8.9 μm), DWIO® (34.8 ± 10.8 μm), Omnicam® (43.2 ± 9.4 μm). In the FA, Trios3® had the best precision (35.6 ± 3.4 μm), followed by CS 3600® (35.7 ± 4.3 μm), Emerald® (61.5 ± 18.1 μm), Omnicam® (89.3 ± 14 μm), DWIO® (111 ± 24.8 μm). Significant differences were found between the IOSs; a significant difference in precision was found between the contexts (SC vs. PP vs. FA).
conclusionsThe IOSs showed significant differences between them, both in trueness and in precision. The mathematical error increased in the transition from SC to PP up to FA, both in trueness than in precision.
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.