ArticleClinical implant dentistry and related research2025
The Effect of Angulation and Scan Body Position on Scans for Implant-Treated Edentulism: A Clinical Simulation Study.
Article in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2025. 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.
- Trueness and Precision of Intraoral Scanners for 3D-Printed Orthodontic Models with Attachments: An In Vitro Comparative Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effect of implant angulation on the trueness and precision of intraoral scanning and photogrammetry.BMC oral health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe acquisition of digital impressions has become an integral part of clinical dentistry. The purpose of the present clinical simulation study was to evaluate the accuracy of digital impressions for maxillary full-arch implant-supported prostheses using two modern intraoral scanners with different acquisition technologies. MATERIAL AND
methodsTwo models of edentulous maxilla, with six implants at positions #16,14,12,22,24,26 (FDI World Dental Federation System, ISO 3950) or #3,5,7,10,12,14 (Universal Numbering system) were digitally designed, and 3D-printed in resin material (Asiga DentaMODEL, Australia). In the first scenario, all implants were parallelized, while in the second, implants #12/#7 and #22/#10 had a 20° angulation buccally, while implants #16/#3 and #26/#14 20° angulation distally. The models were scanned with two different intraoral scanners, Trios3 (3Shape, Denmark) and CS3600 (Carestream Dental, USA). Linear (x, y, z axes-top point) and angular deviations (x, y, z axes-Δφ) were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests (significance at p < 0.05).
resultsImplant angulation showed a significant impact on accuracy, while the two scanners showed statistically significant differences. CS3600 demonstrated superior trueness, while Trios3 superior precision in both clinical scenarios. In the first clinical scenario a predominant occurrence of angular deviations was observed, while in the second scenario both angular and linear deviations were recorded. Scan body position also influenced scanning outcomes, with the last scan body captured demonstrating higher deviations.
conclusionBoth scanners provided acceptable accuracy in the acquisition of digital impressions. Implant angulation and scan body position significantly affected trueness and precision. Clinicians should carefully consider implant angulations in full-arch implant restorations, as well as the scanning protocol.
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.