ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2025
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis MATERIALS AND
methodsFour implants were planned in an edentulous maxillary arch and divided into two groups based on posterior implant angulation: Model A (Parallel) and Model B (30°). Each model was evaluated under three auxiliary geometric devices (AGD) application types (std, agd1, agd2), and scanned using three different intraoral scanners (IOSs) [3Shape Trios 3 (T), Medit i700 (M), and Cerec Primescan (PS)], resulting in nine groups per model (n = 10). Scanning times and faulty scans were recorded. A conventional impression (CON) was taken as a control and digitized with a desktop scanner. Trueness was analyzed using Geomagic Control X, with statistical significance set at
resultsGroup B had higher RMS values than Group A (40.3 µm vs. 34.7 µm). T_std in Group A (51.4 µm) and T_std (53.1 µm) and Con (50.7 µm) in Group B exceeded the acceptable deviation limit. AGDs reduced deviations to acceptable levels in the Trios 3. The Primescan scanner had the shortest scanning times. AGD use, especially in T_agd2 and M_agd2, shortened scan times and eliminated erroneous scans.
conclusionThe use of AGD has a significant impact on scanners' scanning trueness and time.
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.