Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34312701›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of implant dentistry2021

Trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by intraoral scanners: a literature review.

Minoru Sanda, Keita Miyoshi, Kazuyoshi Baba

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of implant dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. [Comparative study on the accuracy of extraoral scanning versus intraoral scanning in digital impressions for implant restoration in edentulous jaws].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Accuracy of 3 Intraoral Scanners in Recording Impressions for Full Arch Dental Implant-Supported Prosthesis: An In Vitro Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Article
  16. [Research progress on accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaw].Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Minoru SandaDepartment of Prosthodontics, Showa University, 2-1-1 Kitasenzoku, Ota-ku, Tokyo, 145-8515, Japan.
Keita MiyoshiDepartment of Prosthodontics, Showa University, 2-1-1 Kitasenzoku, Ota-ku, Tokyo, 145-8515, Japan.
Kazuyoshi BabaDepartment of Prosthodontics, Showa University, 2-1-1 Kitasenzoku, Ota-ku, Tokyo, 145-8515, Japan. kazuyoshi@dent.showa-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8025-2168

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the development of intraoral scanners, their trueness and precision have been evaluated in various studies. Through these studies, the amount of accuracy that can be expected from intraoral scanners has gradually been disclosed, at the same time, it was difficult to integrate the results of individual studies due to differences in evaluation methods between studies. The purpose of this article was to review the currently available evidence, summarise what is currently known about IOS, analyse the evaluation methods of each study, and list points to note when interpreting the results. MAIN TEXT: Most of the studies were conducted in vitro. The accuracy is evaluated in situations such as single missing teeth, partially edentulous ridges with multiple missing teeth, and fully edentulous jaws. To evaluate the accuracy, direct measurement of distance or angle by coordinate measuring machines and calculation of surface deviation by superimposing surface data were predominantly performed. The influence of parameters such as the number of implants, distance between implants, angle between implants, and experience of the operator was evaluated. Many studies have shown that trueness tends to decrease as the distance between the implants and the scan range increases. It was agreed that the implant angle did not affect either trueness or precision. Regarding other factors, the results varied among studies. Therefore, the effects of these parameters are not clear.

conclusionsHeterogeneity in the research methodology was prevalent among the studies considered in this review. Therefore, we cannot make a decisive statement regarding the trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by IOSs. So far, the comparison of the numerical values of error between studies has yet to elucidate any clear answers, despite small methodological differences.

Indexed as

Jaw, EdentulousMouth, EdentulousComputer-Aided DesignHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalProstheses and ImplantsDental implantsImpression accuracyIntraoral scanner

Identifiers

PMID34312701
PMCPMC8313656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.