ArticleBMC oral health2025
Impact of implant scan body material and angulation on the trueness and precision of digital implant impressions using four intraoral scanners-an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary Evaluation of a Hybrid Scan Transfer Workflow for Complex Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitations.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- 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 Material, Sterilization, and Repeated Use on the Deviations of PEEK and Titanium Monoblock Scanbodies.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2026Article
- Cumulative Error in Digital Workflows for Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation: A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy Between Digital and Conventional Definitive Impressions of Edentulous Arches: A Clinical Study.Health science reports · 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
Abstract
backgroundIntraoral scanners (IOS) offer advantages in implant dentistry, but accuracy depends on factors including implant scan body (ISB) material and implant angulation. Conflicting evidence exists on the performance of Titanium (Ti) versus PEEK ISBs, especially with angulated implants. This study aimed to evaluate the combined effect of ISB material (PEEK vs. Ti) and implant angulation (0° vs. 30°) on the trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained from four different IOSs.
methodsA 3D-printed edentulous maxillary model with four implants (two parallel 0°, two angled 30°). Four ISB configurations (Ti 0°, Ti 30°, PEEK 0°, PEEK 30°) were screwed to the implants and scanned (n = 10 per group) using four IOSs: Primescan, Trios 3, Aoralscan 3, and Fussen S6000. A high-resolution desktop scanner provided the reference. Trueness (RMS error vs. reference model) and precision (RMS error from intra-group comparisons) were calculated using Geomagic software. Data were analyzed using Friedman and Kruskal-Wallis tests (α = 0.05).
resultsISB configuration significantly affected trueness (P < 0.001) and precision (P < 0.001). PEEK ISBs demonstrated significantly higher trueness and precision than Ti ISBs (P < 0.001). PEEK 30° showed the highest trueness, while PEEK 0° showed the highest precision. Angulation did not significantly affect trueness for Ti ISBs. IOS type significantly influenced trueness and precision across all ISB configurations (P < 0.001). Primescan and Trios 3 generally exhibited higher trueness and precision compared to Aoralscan 3 and Fussen S6000 (specific pairwise differences varied by condition, P < 0.05).
conclusionsBoth ISB material and implant angulation significantly influence the trueness and precision of full-arch digital implant impressions. PEEK ISBs consistently outperformed Titanium ISBs. Choice of IOS is also critical, with significant performance differences observed among the tested IOSs. Clinicians should consider these interactions when selecting materials and IOSs for optimal accuracy.
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.