ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2025
Effects of scan body material, length and top design on digital implant impression accuracy and usability: an
Article in The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of substructure material on the scanning accuracy and scannability of implant-supported full arch bar substructures.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Influence of gingival color and abutment material on the accuracy of intraoral implant scans: an in vitro study.Odontology · 2026Article
- Digital impression accuracy of a novel scannable healing abutment: an in vitro study with three intraoral scanners.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- PEEK Intraoral Scan Bodies-A Scoping Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Effect of scan body geometric configuration and library design on digital implant impression accuracy.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluated how implant scan body (ISB) design affects trueness and operator convenience of digital implant impressions. The null hypothesis stated no significant differences in trueness or usability between ISB designs. MATERIALS AND
methodsA cast metal model with nine implants and silicone mucosal masks (1 mm and 3 mm thickness) were used. Seven ISB prototypes were developed by modifying a commercial ISB (ELOS Accurate IO2A-B, ELOS Medtech) in four aspects: length (30% shorter and 50% longer), material (polyetheretherketone (PEEK) or titanium), surface reflectance (polished or aluminium oxide-blasted titanium), and top surface (concave top and screw holes enlarged by 100% and 200%). Each prototype was scanned ten times using an intraoral scanner (NeoScan1000, Neoss), with a desktop scanner (E3, 3Shape) providing reference scans. Deviations in depth, angulation, and rotation were analyzed in CAD software (GOM Inspect, Zeiss). Statistical analysis included the Welch test (
resultsMaterial affected depth accuracy; blasted titanium (89 ± 86 µm) and polished titanium (80 ± 72 µm) outperformed PEEK (149 ± 131 µm). Shorter ISBs showed greater angular deviations (0.64 ± 0.70°) compared to control (0.31 ± 0.21°). Rotational deviations were not significant. Scanning times increased for reflective, longer ISBs with reduced top areas, while shorter ISBs improved usability.
conclusionISB design influences digital impression accuracy. Titanium ISBs with reduced reflectivity improve trueness, and larger screw holes enhance usability. Shorter ISBs reduce scanning time but compromise angular trueness. Stitching errors remain the primary source of depth inaccuracies.
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.