ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2025
Differences between laboratory scanner and intra-oral scanner regarding axes and distances of three implants in a curved line when using two types of intra-oral scan bodies: in vitro study.
Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate differences in the intra-implant distance, inter-implant distance, intra-implant axis and inter-implant axis of two different intra-oral scan bodies (ISBs) which are connected to three implants in a curved line by comparing laboratory scanner (LBS) versus an intra-oral scanner (IOS).
methodsPrinted model with three internal hexagon implant analogs at the locations of 12#, 13#, and 14# was produced. Two ISBs, MIS Dentsply Sirona (MIS) and Zirkonzhan (ZZ), with different geometries (MIS trapezoid, ZZ cylindrical) were scanned one time by using LBS (master model) followed by thirty scans with IOS. After each scan a stereolithography (STL) file was produced and each IOS STL file was superimposed with the LBS STL file (master model) by using three-dimensional (3D) analysis software PolyWorks
resultsMean errors for inter-implant distance were significantly lower for MIS compared to the ZZ (p < 0.05). In contrast, mean errors for intra-implant angle were significantly lower for ZZ compared to MIS (p < 0.05). Mean error for inter-implant angle was significantly lower for MIS compared to ZZ only between 12# to 14# and no difference was found between the other couples (p < 0.05).
conclusionsISB geometry influenced all four parameters: intra-implant distance, intra-implant angle, inter-implant distance and inter-implant angle. MIS ISB trapezoid geometry resulted significantly lower mean error regarding most parameters except intra-implant angle. ZZ ISB cylindrical geometry had a good impact only on the intra-implant angle.
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.