ArticleBMC research notes2025
The accuracy of digital impression with different intraoral scanners on maxillary all on four implants: an in vitro study.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of digital impressions for implant fixed dental prostheses in partial and complete maxillary edentulous arches: effect of intraoral scanners and implant position.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparison of marginal gap in implant-supported hybrid nanoceramic crowns fabricated by additive vs. subtractive manufacturing.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Accuracy of digital impressions captured by an intraoral scanner in a partially edentulous mandible.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
- 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
- Article
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
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
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.