ArticleJournal of dental sciences2025
Impact of scan body splinting on the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impressions.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Materials and Techniques for Splinting Scan Bodies: A Scoping Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Trueness of Complete-Arch Implant Scans: Influence of Scanning Technique, Intraoral Scanner, and Implant Position (Part I: Linear and Angular Deviations).Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: The accuracy of intraoral scanners in capturing complete-arch implant impressions remains a subject of ongoing investigation. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of different scanning strategies and the effect of splinting scan bodies on the accuracy of complete digital scans of the mandible. Materials and methods: A master model of an edentulous mandible with four dental implants was used. The implants were positioned bilaterally in the regions of the mandibular lateral incisors and second premolars. A laboratory scanner was utilized to digitize the reference model. Three experimental groups were used to evaluate the effects of different scanning strategies and auxiliary reference methods on scan accuracy: Group A (single-stage scan), Group B (two-stage scan without additional references), and Group C (two-stage scan with additional reference points). Results: A total of 45 digital scans were analyzed. To evaluate scan accuracy, linear deviations were measured at the four implant sites and compared against the digital reference model. Group A consistently demonstrated the highest accuracy, with the lowest overall mean linear deviation of 39.57 ± 8.69 μm across all implant positions. Group B recorded a marginally higher mean deviation of 42.80 ± 24.24 μm. Group C showed the greatest linear deviation (70.60 ± 17.69 μm), and the differences were statistically significant when compared with both Groups A and B ( Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that single-stage scanning yields superior accuracy, whereas the incorporation of poorly designed or improperly positioned reference markers may inadvertently compromise scan precision.
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.