ArticleSichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition2025
[Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Impressions for Complete-Arch Implant-Supported Restorations].
Article in Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of conventional impression techniques, intraoral scanning, and two stereophotogrammetry systems (PIC and ICam4D) for complete-arch implant restorations, and to analyze the influence of varying interimplant distance and implant angulation on the accuracy of each impression method. Methods: A total of 6 edentulous maxillary all-on-four casts were fabricated with varying posterior implant parameters, including anterior-posterior (A-P) distances of 20 mm and 35 mm and distal implant angulations of 0°, 15°, and 25°. Impressions were obtained using conventional impression techniques, intraoral scanning, and two stereophotogrammetry systems (PIC and ICam4D). The three-dimensional deviations of the impression techniques were measured using reverse-engineering software to evaluate trueness and precision. Results: The accuracy of intraoral scanning technology exhibited a declining trend with increasing A-P distance and implant angulation. The maximum deviations in trueness and precision were observed in the posterior region with an A-P distance of 35 mm and a distal implant angulation of 25°, measuring (76.90 ± 43.32) μm and (99.43 ± 74.39) μm, respectively. The conventional impression techniques exhibited stable performance, with mean accuracy deviation values consistently falling below 50 μm. The ICam4D stereophotogrammetry system exhibited the highest precision across all conditions ( Conclusion: For complete-arch implant rehabilitation, the accuracy of different impression methods varies depending on implant-related factors. The inter-implant distance and angulation were critical determinants of accuracy for intraoral scanning, whereas conventional impression techniques and the two stereophotogrammetry systems exhibited no clear correlation with these parameters.
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.