SynthesisInternational journal of implant dentistry2024
A systematic review of factors impacting intraoral scanning accuracy in implant dentistry with emphasis on scan bodies.
Synthesis in International journal of implant dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 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
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Agreement and reproducibility of intraoral scan- versus CBCT-based three-dimensional implant position assessment in the posterior mandible - a paired in vitro method-comparison study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2026Article
- Segmented Intraoral Scanning With a Palatal Marker for Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impressions: An In Vitro Comparative Study.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Article
- Evaluation of precision and trueness of intraoral scanners for newborns with cleft lip and palate: 3D analysis of digital models.Head & face medicine · 2026Article
- Optimizing Digital Impressions: A Review of Factors Affecting Intraoral Scanner Accuracy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Performance assessment of five artificial intelligence-based algorithms for automated tooth segmentation and labeling on intraoral scans.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026Article
- The Trueness between Conventional Impression and Different Intraoral Scanners for All-on-4 Implants: An In vitro Comparative Study.European journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Mapping Error Propagation in Intraoral Scanning Using Reason's Swiss-Cheese Model: An In Vitro Study of Precision Under Repeatability Conditions.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Influence of Tooth Morphology on Local Mesh Density Distribution in Intraoral Scanner-Derived STL Models of Selected Maxillary Teeth.Dentistry journal · 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
- 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla: Patient and Cross-Disciplinary Expert Single-Round Surveys.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Article
- In Vitro Accuracy Analysis of Intraoral Scanning Strategies: A Comparison of Two Contemporary IOS Systems.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Influence of intraoral scanner type on the marginal fit of digitally fabricated lithium disilicate crowns.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Digital impression accuracy for bone-level and tissue-level implants using scan bodies of different heights.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Influence of Horizontal Intraoral Scan Bodies on the Trueness of Digital Impressions for Complete-Arch Prostheses on Four Implants: An In Vitro Evaluation.Clinical oral implants research · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this systematic review was to explore and identify the factors that influence the accuracy of intraoral scanning in implant dentistry, with a specific focus on scan bodies (ISBs).
methodsFollowing the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, this study conducted a thorough electronic search across MedLine, PubMed, and Scopus to identify relevant studies. Articles were screened based on titles, abstracts, and full texts for relevance. The Robins I tool assessed the risk of bias in various study types. Data extraction occurred based on predetermined parameters for studying specimens and assessing outcomes.
results16 studies met the specified criteria and were consequently included in the systematic review. Due to variations in variables and methods across the selected studies, statistical comparison of results was not feasible. Therefore, a descriptive review approach was chosen, acknowledging the substantial heterogeneity in the reviewed literature.
conclusionsThe precision of virtual scan results is contingent upon diverse characteristics of ISBs and implants. These factors encompass their placement within the dental arch, structural design, shape, material composition, color, and the manufacturing system, all of which contribute to scan accuracy. Additionally, considerations such as the intraoral scanner (IOS) type, scanning technique, use of scan aids, inter-implant distance, scan span, and the number of implants warrant evaluation. In the context of capturing implant positions, intraoral scanning with ISBs demonstrates comparable accuracy to traditional impression methods, particularly in single and short-span scenarios. However, the existing data lacks sufficient information on in vivo applications to formulate clinical recommendations.
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.