ArticleBMC oral health2020
Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: a comparative in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05011604 (Full-Digital Workflow in Single-Tooth Implant Rehabilitation), which is not on this map. Cited by 50 papers.
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.
Full-Digital Workflow in Single-Tooth Implant Rehabilitation
Who cites it
50 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the accuracy of two techniques for three-dimensional digital indirect bonding of orthodontic brackets: A randomized controlled trial.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2024Trial
- Robot-assisted Computer-Implant surgery : A comprehensive review of system architecture, clinical accuracy, and emerging technologies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- 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
- Knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers toward guided endodontic access among dental practitioners in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Mesh quality comparison of common three file formats derived from intraoral scans.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Effect of three-segment scanning on the accuracy of intraoral scans in full-arch implant-supported rehabilitation: an in vitro study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2026Article
- Comparative accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scans using full-scan and segmental-and-merge strategies.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2026Article
- Reliability of intraoral scanning for capturing gingival morphology and color in periodontitis patients.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Cumulative Error in Digital Workflows for Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation: A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A comparative in vitro study of the accuracy and precision of different intraoral scanners for implant-supported hybrid prostheses impressions.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Correlation between intraoral scanner and 3D confocal laser microscopy in early measurement of enamel loss due to dental erosion.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Three-Dimensional Intraoral Scanners in Oral Soft Tissue Diagnosis: A Narrative Review and Conceptual Outlook.Cureus · 2025Review
- Influence of misfit direction and abutment type on torque loss and fracture strength of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2025Article
- Trueness of Complete-Arch Implant Scans: Influence of Scanning Technique, Intraoral Scanner, and Implant Position (Part I: Linear and Angular Deviations).Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Effect of the scan body alignment process on the accuracy of virtual definitive implant casts: a pilot study.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2025Article
- Influence of camera position, implant angulation and implant reference on the accuracy of complete arch implant recordings with photogrammetry.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2025Article
- Trueness of Intraoral Scanners for Edentulous Mandibular Arches With and Without Landmarks.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
- Influence of Horizontal Intraoral Scan Bodies on the Trueness of Digital Impressions for Complete-Arch Prostheses on Four Implants: An In Vitro Evaluation.Clinical oral implants research · 2025Article
- The effect of burs wear during milling on accuracy of zirconia lithium silicate single crowns: 3-dimensional analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Comparison of dimensional accuracy of digital models by intraoral scanning method in comparison with molding with alginate.Dental research journal · 2025Article
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
backgroundThe literature has not yet validated the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for full-arch (FA) implant impression. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the trueness of 12 different IOSs in FA implant impression.
methodsA stone-cast model of a totally edentulous maxilla with 6 implant analogues and scanbodies (SBs) was scanned with a desktop scanner (Freedom UHD®) to capture a reference model (RM), and with 12 IOSs (ITERO ELEMENTS 5D®; PRIMESCAN® and OMNICAM®; CS 3700® and CS 3600®; TRIOS3®; i-500®; EMERALD S® and EMERALD®; VIRTUO VIVO® and DWIO®; RUNEYES QUICKSCAN®). Ten scans were taken using each IOS, and each was compared to the RM, to evaluate trueness. A mesh/mesh method and a nurbs/nurbs method were used to evaluate the overall trueness of the scans; linear and cross distances between the SBs were used to evaluate the local trueness of the scans. The analysis was performed using reverse engineering software (Studio®, Geomagics; Magics®, Materialise). A statistical evaluation was performed.
resultsWith the mesh/mesh method, the best results were obtained by CS 3700® (mean error 30.4 μm) followed by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (31.4 μm), i-500® (32.2 μm), TRIOS 3® (36.4 μm), CS 3600® (36.5 μm), PRIMESCAN® (38.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (43.8 μm), RUNEYES® (44.4 μm), EMERALD S® (52.9 μm), EMERALD® (76.1 μm), OMNICAM® (79.6 μm) and DWIO® (98.4 μm). With the nurbs/nurbs method, the best results were obtained by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (mean error 16.1 μm), followed by PRIMESCAN® (19.3 μm), TRIOS 3® (20.2 μm), i-500® (20.8 μm), CS 3700® (21.9 μm), CS 3600® (24.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (32.0 μm), RUNEYES® (33.9 μm), EMERALD S® (36.8 μm), OMNICAM® (47.0 μm), EMERALD® (51.9 μm) and DWIO® (69.9 μm). Statistically significant differences were found between the IOSs. Linear and cross distances between the SBs (local trueness analysis) confirmed the data that emerged from the overall trueness evaluation.
conclusionsDifferent levels of trueness were found among the IOSs evaluated in this study. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.
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.