ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2023
Investigation of the effects of arch size and implant angulation on the accuracy of digital impression using two intraoral scanners: An in vitro study.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of implant angulation on the trueness and precision of intraoral scanning and photogrammetry.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Investigation of the effects of arch size and implant angulation on the accuracy of digital impression using two intraoral scanners: An in vitro study.Clinical and experimental dental research · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of arch size and implant angulation on the accuracy of digital impression in two intraoral scanners of Trios (3shape) and CEREC (Omnicam). MATERIAL AND
methodsFour acrylic models each including six implants at sites 11, 12, 15, 17, 23, and 27 were used, including large with parallel implants, large with angled implants, small with parallel implants, and small with angled implants. After tightening the scan bodies, distance measurements were done using a coordinate measuring machine. Then, each model was scanned 10 times using each scanner. Trueness and precision measurements were finally computed.
resultsThe trueness values ranged from 20 to 260 μm in CEREC Omnicam, and from 40 to 1030 μm in Trios. The precision values ranged from 30 to 190 μm in CEREC Omnicam, while from 50 to 770 μm in Trios. The multivariate test analysis indicated that the measured distances via two scanners and different models show different behaviors. Pairwise interactions between these three variables were significant (p < .05). Pairwise interactions between these variables were also significant. (p < .0001).
conclusionsArch width could affect the accuracy of digital impression; by rotating toward the second quadrant and end points of the scan, errors have increased. However, the angulation of the implants had no effect on the accuracy of digital impression. The CEREC Omnicam scanner showed higher accuracy (trueness and precision) compared to the Trios (3shape) one.
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.