ArticleFrontiers in oral health2025
Conventional scan body vs. scan bodies with auxiliary geometric devices: an
Article in Frontiers in oral health, 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.
- Materials and Techniques for Splinting Scan Bodies: A Scoping Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- [Assistance and breakthrough of digitalization and intelligent digitalization in implant restoration of edentulous jaws].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of an auxiliary geometric device (AGD) in enhancing the trueness of full-arch implant impressions. The primary metrics of interest were total surface deviation (TotRMS), centroid deviation (cRMS), and angular deviation. All these values are crucial for achieving a precise fit of implant-supported prostheses. Methods: A gypsum-based edentulous maxillary model with four multi-unit abutment replicas was prepared, replicating clinical scenarios. Control and experimental scan bodies were scanned using an intraoral scanner (Dexis 3800), and the resulting data were compared to a digital master model created with a structured light scanner (ATOS compact Scan 5M). The AGD was used to reduce positional errors during the scan process. Data were processed using Exocad and GOM Inspect Professional software, aligning scan body library files with mesh data using a best-fit algorithm. Angular, platform, and total deviations were calculated to assess positional trueness. A sample size of 20 scans per group was determined Results: The inclusion of the AGD significantly reduced centroid root mean square (cRMS) values in all measured comparisons ( Conclusion: The AGD, tested under
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.