Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41024033›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2025

Effects of inter-implant tooth loss and scan body material on digital impression accuracy: an in vitro study.

Xiaodong Sun, Long Li, Cai Wen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Xiaodong Sun *Department of Prosthodontics, The Affiliated Stomatology Hospital, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Long Li *Department of Prosthodontics, The Affiliated Stomatology Hospital, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Cai WenDepartment of Prosthodontics, The Affiliated Stomatology Hospital, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China. wencai@swmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3400-5382

Funding

The affiliated stomatological hospital of southwest medical university 2022GP04
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe accuracy of digital implant scanning and the optimal choice of scanning bodies remain debated, particularly in cases involving multiple missing teeth between implants. This study aimed to investigate the influence of the number of missing teeth between implants on trueness, precision, and inter-implant distance deviation in digital implant impressions.

methodsThree maxillary models containing two implants and varying edentulous spans were fabricated: S1 (no missing teeth), S2 (one missing tooth), and S3 (two missing teeth). Titanium (Ti) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) scanning bodies were used. Scanning was performed using both industrial and intraoral scanners. Data from the industrial scanners served as the control group, whereas data from the intraoral scanners constituted the experimental group. A three-dimensional deviation analysis using reverse engineering software (Geomagic Control X) quantified trueness, precision, and inter-implant distance deviation. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) evaluated the effects of tooth loss, scanning body material, and their interaction on scanning accuracy.

resultsThe number of missing teeth considerably affected scanning accuracy. As tooth loss increased, mean trueness deteriorated in both Ti (S1: 0.18 ± 0.03 mm, S2: 0.35 ± 0.01 mm, S3: 0.56 ± 0.03 mm, p < 0.001) and PEEK (S1: 0.19 ± 0.15 mm, S2: 0.62 ± 0.11 mm, S3: 0.88 ± 0.08 mm, p < 0.001) groups. Moreover, precision worsened in both Ti (S1: 0.07 ± 0.02 mm, S2: 0.16 ± 0.04 mm, S3: 0.36 ± 0.17 mm, p < 0.001) and PEEK (S1: 0.11 ± 0.02 mm, S2: 0.28 ± 0.08 mm, S3: 0.77 ± 0.17 mm, p < 0.001) groups. Inter-implant distance deviations increased in Ti (S1: 0.28 ± 0.04 mm, S2: 0.32 ± 0.08 mm, S3: 0.37 ± 0.10 mm, p = 0.072) and PEEK (S1: 0.29 ± 0.11 mm, S2: 0.33 ± 0.03 mm, S3: 0.81 ± 0.11 mm, p < 0.001) groups. In the intergroup comparison between Ti and PEEK scanning bodies, significant differences were observed in the following parameters: Trueness: S2 (p < 0.001), S3 (p < 0.001); Precision: S1 (p < 0.001), S2 (p < 0.001), S3 (p < 0.001); Distance Deviation: S3 (p < 0.001).Two-way ANOVA showed a strong interaction between tooth loss and scanning body material.

conclusionsIncreased inter-implant tooth loss considerably reduced digital scanning accuracy. Ti scanning bodies provided superior spatial positioning accuracy compared with PEEK under the study conditions.

Indexed as

Computer-Aided DesignDental ImplantsDental Impression TechniqueTooth LossBenzophenonesHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalIn Vitro TechniquesKetonesPolyether CompoundsPolyethylene GlycolsPolymersTitaniumBenzophenonesDental ImplantsKetonesPolyether CompoundspolyetheretherketonePolyethylene GlycolsPolymersTitaniumDental implantsDigital implant impressionInter-implant tooth lossPolyetheretherketone (PEEK) scan bodiesPrecisionTitanium scan bodiesTrueness

Identifiers

PMID41024033
PMCPMC12482032

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.