Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37892783›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023

The Influence of Laboratory Scanner versus Intra-Oral Scanner on Determining Axes and Distances between Three Implants in a Straight Line by Using Two Different Intraoral Scan Bodies: A Pilot In Vitro Study.

Asaf Shely, Diva Lugassy, Ophir Rosner, Eran Zanziper, Joseph Nissan, Shir Rachmiel, Yara Khoury, Gil Ben-Izhack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Asaf ShelyDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-3436-4411
Diva LugassyDepartment of Orthodontics, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.
Ophir RosnerDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.
Eran ZanziperDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-8472-9768
Joseph NissanDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.ORCID 0000-0001-7290-4357
Shir RachmielDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.
Yara KhouryDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.
Gil Ben-IzhackDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.ORCID 0000-0001-5482-0264

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the inter-implant distance, inter-implant axis, and intra-implant axis of three implants in a straight line by using a laboratory scanner (LBS) versus an intra-oral scanner (IOS) with two different intra-oral scan bodies (ISBs).

methodsA 3D model was printed with internal hex implant analogs of three implants in positions 15#, 16#, and 17#. Two standard intra-oral scan bodies (ISBs) were used: MIS ISB (two-piece titanium) and Zirkonzhan ISB (two-piece titanium). Both ISBs were scanned using 7 Series dental wings (LBS) and 30 times using Primescan (IOS). For each scan, a stereolithography (STL) file was created and a comparison between all the scans was performed through superimposition of the STL files by using 3D analysis software (PolyWorks

resultsThe change in inter-implant distance for the MIS ISB was significantly lower compared to the ZZ (

conclusionsBoth ISBs showed differences in all the parameters between the LBS and the IOS. The geometry of the scan abutment had an impact on the inter-implant distance as the changes in the inter-implant distance were significantly lower for the MIS ISB. The changes in the intra-implant angle were significantly lower for the ZZ ISB. There is a need for further research examining the influence of geometry, material, and scan abutment parts on the trueness.

Indexed as

CAD-CAMCERECdental implantsimplant axisintra-oral scannerISBlaboratory scanneroral rehabilitationPrimescanscan abutment

Identifiers

PMID37892783
PMCPMC10607023

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.