SynthesisJournal of Indian Prosthodontic Society2025
Accuracy of the digital implant impression with splinted and non-splinted intraoral scan bodies: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- PEEK Intraoral Scan Bodies-A Scoping Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impressions using conventional scanbodies, ScanTransfers, and splinted ScanTransfers: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- The Effects of Scan Body Geometry on the Precision and the Trueness of Implant Impressions Using Intraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Enhancing Intraoral Scanning Accuracy: From the Influencing Factors to a Procedural Guideline.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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
introductionAccurate implant impressions are crucial for successful prosthetic rehabilitation. Digital impressions using intraoral scanners (IOS) have emerged as an alternative to conventional techniques. Various factors influence the accuracy of digital implant impressions, including scan body design, scanning protocol, and splinting techniques. AIM AND
objectiveTo evaluate the difference between splinted and nonsplinted scan bodies in the accuracy of digital impressions for single or multiple implants by measuring distance and angular deviations between superimposed digital impressions. MATERIALS AND
methodsPRISMA guidelines were followed in this systematic review. Electronic databases were searched for relevant studies published up to January 2024. Inclusion criteria encompassed clinical trials, in vivo and in vitro studies on scan bodies in partially or fully edentulous arches. Two reviewers independently assessed abstracts, titles and full texts. Data extraction included distance deviation, angular deviation, trueness, and precision measurements. DISCUSSION: Most studies found that scan body splinting improved the accuracy of digital implant impressions, particularly for complete-arch cases. Splinting techniques varied, including light-cured resin, pattern resin, dental floss, and custom-made splints. Factors such as the inter-implant distance, number of implants and choice of IOS also influenced accuracy. However, some studies reported no significant improvement or even negative effects of splinting on accuracy.
conclusionSplinting scan bodies generally improves the accuracy of digital implant impressions, especially for complete-arch cases. It enhances the stitching process in digital workflows and provides more stable reference points. However, the effectiveness may vary depending on the specific clinical situation, scanning protocol, and IOS used. Further research is needed to establish standardized protocols and evaluate long-term clinical outcomes of digitally fabricated implant restorations based on splinted scan body impressions.
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.