Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40264219›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2025

The accuracy of digital impression with different intraoral scanners on maxillary all on four implants: an in vitro study.

Hesham M El-Refay, Medhat Sameh Abdelaziz, Nora M Cheta, Mohamed F Abdallah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Hesham M El-RefayDepartment of Oral Implantology, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Medhat Sameh AbdelazizFaculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Prosthodontics Department, Future University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt. medhat.abdelaziz@fue.edu.eg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9646-2343
Nora M ChetaFaculty of Dentistry, Prosthodontics Department, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Mohamed F AbdallahFaculty of Dentistry, Prosthodontics Department, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of 30° angulation of (All-on-four) implants on the accuracy of digital impressions using different intra-oral scanners in the maxillary edentulous arch in terms of trueness and precision. MATERIALS AND

methodsA maxillary completely edentulous model was 3D printed with four-cylinder holes measuring 4.3*10 mm, creating space for implant analogs at the canines and second premolar areas. The two anterior implants were placed parallel to each other with 0-degree angulation at the site of the canines, while the two posterior implants were placed at the site of the second premolars with 30° distal angulations. Four peek scan bodies were screwed to analogs. The model is scanned using an EOS X5 desktop scanner and set as a reference model. Afterward, three groups of intraoral scanners group 1 (Trios3shape), group 2 (Medit I700), and group 3 (Launca DL-202) were used to scan the model. Seven scans of the model were performed for each scanner following the manufacturer protocol. The trueness and precision of each intraoral scanner were virtually tested using the Gemoagic Control X software program.

resultsRegarding trueness, there was a statistically significant deviation between the three intraoral scanners recording 38, 44, and 229 μm for the Trios, Medit I-700, and Launca scanners, respectively, while there was no statistically significant difference in precision between the Trios and Medit I700 scanners.

conclusionsThe Trios scanner was the most accurate regarding trueness and precision for recording the maxillary full arch implants, followed by the Medit I-700, and the Launca scanner due to the ability of the Trios scanner to scan the posterior angulated implants as accurately as the anterior straight ones. Also, the scanner technology separately doesn't affect scanning accuracy, but other factors should be taken into consideration such as scanner design and scanner head size. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The type of intraoral scanner used in full arch cases greatly affects the accuracy of digital impressions, which may affect the fit of future prostheses, so the operator should carefully choose the proper optical scanner.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsDental Impression TechniqueMaxillaHumansIn Vitro TechniquesModels, DentalPrinting, Three-DimensionalDental ImplantsAll on fourDigital impressionFull arch implantsImplantsIntra-oral scanning

Identifiers

PMID40264219
PMCPMC12013090

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.