ArticleBMC oral health2024
Effect of saliva on accuracy of digital dental implant transfer using two different materials of intraoral scan bodies with different exposed lengths.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital workflow for implant-supported restorations in the mandible including reverse scan bodies: a feasibility study.BMC oral health · 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
- 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
- Cumulative Error in Digital Workflows for Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation: A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Accuracy of Digital Impressions of Implants With Angulated and Different Vertical Positions in the Full Arch: An In Vitro Study.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe accuracy of digital implant transfer is currently under investigation in relation to the effect of saliva, scan body material, and exposed length.
methodsSix completely edentulous casts with four implant fixtures were fabricated. The four implant fixtures in each cast were placed below the crest of the ridge of the casts by 1.5 mm. The four implant fixtures were alternately attached to four implant scan bodies (PEEK) Group (I) and (TITANIUM) Group (II). For each cast, two flexible polyurethane layers with varying thicknesses were fabricated and molded on the six 3D printed identical casts after the placement of the implant fixtures in each cast for the soft tissue moulage in the cast. The six casts were alternately covered with a 2 mm and 4 mm thick layer. The six reference casts were recorded using a coordinate measurement machine (CMM) and subsequently scanned with an Intraoral scanner (MEDIT I 700). The scanning was conducted under both dry and wet conditions, with artificial saliva applied. The scanning platform consisted of two transparent acrylic boxes, and the process followed standardized scanning conditions using a digital lux meter (n = 48). The mean difference and standard deviation values (± SD) between the implant scan bodies measured on the reference and experimental scans were calculated using the inspection software program (Medit design). Data were fed to the computer and analyzed using IBM SPSS software package version 20.0. (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Shapiro-Wilk test were used to verify the normality of distribution. Quantitative data mean and standard deviation. The significance of the obtained results was determined at the 5% level. The student t-test for normally distributed quantitative variables was used to compare the two groups studied.
resultsStatistically significant differences in wettability condition discrepancies were found between groups (I) and (II) (p < 0.05). In addition, there were statistically significant differences in intraoral scan body (ISB) length between the two groups (p < 0.05). Regarding the intraoral scan body material, statistically significant differences were found between the two groups (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe presence of saliva significantly affects the accuracy of the digital implant transfer. Additionally, using a longer intraoral scan body improves the accuracy of digital implant impressions. The titanium scan body had a greater level of precision on the implant impression scan.
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.