ArticleScientific reports2021
Trueness of digital implant impressions based on implant angulation and scan body materials.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Influence of substructure material on the scanning accuracy and scannability of implant-supported full arch bar substructures.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- 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
- Effect of Implant Angulation on Digital Impression Accuracy of Three-Unit Implant-Supported Restorations.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Do implant angulation and print orientation compromise masked stereolithography apparatus printer model accuracy? an in-vitro study.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
- Effect of Material, Sterilization, and Repeated Use on the Deviations of PEEK and Titanium Monoblock Scanbodies.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2026Article
- Digital impression accuracy for bone-level and tissue-level implants using scan bodies of different heights.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Effects of inter-implant tooth loss and scan body material on digital impression accuracy: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Impact of implant scan body material and angulation on the trueness and precision of digital implant impressions using four intraoral scanners-an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Effects of scan body material, length and top design on digital implant impression accuracy and usability: anThe journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2025Article
- Differences between laboratory scanner and intra-oral scanner regarding axes and distances of three implants in a curved line when using two types of intra-oral scan bodies: in vitro study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2025Article
- Accuracy of intraoral scanners for full-arch implant scanning in the Maxilla using horizontal scanbody.PloS one · 2025Article
- Surface Characterization of Bone-Level and Tissue-Level PEEK and Titanium Dental Implant Scan Bodies After Repeated Autoclave Sterilization Cycles.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Effect of angulation on the 3D trueness of conventional and digital implant impressions for multi-unit restorations.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2023Article
- Influence of Implant Scanbody Wear on the Accuracy of Digital Impression for Complete-Arch: A Randomized In Vitro Trial.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Effects of implant angulation on digital implant impression accuracy remain controversial. Therefore, this in vitro study aimed to compare the digital implant impression trueness among models with different implant angulations and scan body materials. Six partially edentulous mandibular models with dental implants on the right second premolar and second molar areas were categorized according to the implant angulation of the distal implant (parallel, or 15° mesially or lingually tilted compared to the mesial implant) and scan body materials (polyetheretherketone or titanium). After scanning each model with intraoral scanners, the root mean square and within-tolerance values were calculated with respect to the reference, and nonparametric statistical tests were performed (α = .05). Scan data from models with the mesially tilted distal implant showed better trueness than the corresponding parallel and lingually tilted groups in terms of root mean square values (p < .017). The root mean square value in the titanium scan body group was lower than that in the polyetheretherketone scan body group (p < .001). However, the percentage within a tolerance of ± .1 mm was higher in the polyetheretherketone scan body group than in the titanium scan body group (p = .001). Intraoral scan data of models where the terminal implant was mesially tilted showed better trueness.
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.