ArticleClinical oral implants research2025
Influence of Horizontal Intraoral Scan Bodies on the Trueness of Digital Impressions for Complete-Arch Prostheses on Four Implants: An In Vitro Evaluation.
Article in Clinical oral implants research, 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.
- Feasibility of the Impression Reference (IR) Technique for Open-Flap Immediate Loading Full-Arch Rehabilitation of the Atrophic Maxilla: A Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Materials and Techniques for Splinting Scan Bodies: A Scoping Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
objectiveTo assess the impact of horizontal intraoral scan bodies (H-ISBs) on the trueness of complete-arch digital impressions compared to vertical ISBs (V-ISBs). To evaluate trueness among four intraoral scanners (IOS) and inter-operator variability across different ISB × IOS combinations. MATERIALS AND
methodsDigital impressions were made from a dental cast with four multi-unit analogs using four H-ISBs: H-NB, H-NS, H-M6, H-SF, and a V-ISB (V-EA) as a comparison. Two operators performed 10 scans per ISB with four IOS devices (i5D, PS, T3, T4), generating 400 impressions. Reference scans were obtained with a desktop scanner, and trueness was analyzed using root-mean-square (RMS) error calculations (α = 0.05).
resultsH-NS and H-SF exhibited the highest trueness across IOSs, whereas H-NB and H-M6 showed lower trueness. V-EA outperformed H-NB and H-M6 but not H-NS and H-SF. Significant IOS-ISB interaction effects (p < 0.01) indicated H-SF as the most accurate, especially with PS. T4 and i5D displayed greater variability, particularly with H-NB. V-ISBs exhibited higher inter-operator variability compared to H-ISBs.
conclusionsH-ISBs did not perform better than V-ISBs in all scenarios. The interactions among ISB design, IOS type, and operator significantly affect the digital impression trueness. The discrepancies measured among the systems remain well below the currently accepted threshold for clinically relevant misfit, supporting the suitability of the horizontal configuration for complete-arch 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.