ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Influence of Implant Scanbody Wear on the Accuracy of Digital Impression for Complete-Arch: A Randomized In Vitro Trial.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05985226 (Clinical Evaluation of the Effect of the Scanning Pattern on Complete-arch Implant Scans), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 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.
Clinical Evaluation of the Effect of the Scanning Pattern on Complete-arch Implant Scans
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Photogrammetry Versus Intraoral Scanning in Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2025Pooled it
- Accuracy of the digital implant impression with splinted and non-splinted intraoral scan bodies: A systematic review.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of repeated usage of two different scan bodies on the accuracy of implant position transfer: An in vitro study.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society · 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
- Enhancing Intraoral Scanning Accuracy: From the Influencing Factors to a Procedural Guideline.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Effect of Repeated Use of Different Types of Scan Bodies on Transfer Accuracy of Implant Position.Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran) · 2023Article
- Comparison of Virtual Intersection and Occlusal Contacts between Intraoral and Laboratory Scans: An In-Vivo Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Influence of scanbody design and intraoral scanner on the trueness of complete arch implant digital impressions: An in vitro study.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of implant scanbody (ISB) wear on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch. A polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) edentulous mandibular model with four internal hexagonal interlocking conical connections was scanned with an extraoral optical scanner to achieve a reference file. Four cylindrical polyetheretherketone (PEEK) ISBs were scanned 30 times with IOS, and the test files were aligned to the reference file with a best-fit algorithm. For each analog linear (ΔX, ΔY and ΔZ-axis) and angular deviations (ΔANGLE) were assessed. Euclidean distance (ΔEUC) was calculated from the linear deviation, reporting a mean of 82 µm (SD 61) ranging from 8 to 347 µm. ΔANGLE error mean was 0.33° (SD 0.20), ranging from 0.02 to 0.92°. From a multivariate analysis, when ΔEUC was considered as a response variable, a significant influence of ISB wear by scan number in interaction to position for implant 3.6 was identified (
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.