ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2026
The Trueness between Conventional Impression and Different Intraoral Scanners for All-on-4 Implants: An In vitro Comparative Study.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2026. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess and compare the trueness (dimensional discrepancy and degree of deviation) of various methods of impressions for All-on-4 implants. Materials and Methods: This investigation employed a single-piece artificial mandibular jaw with four implants arranged in an All-on-4 configuration. Three impression methods were compared: one open-tray conventional impression digitized after pouring, and two intraoral scanners, TRIOS 5 and Runyes 3DS 3.0. A reference scan (control) was conducted with a laboratory-based scanner. All scans were performed using scan bodies and exported as Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files. A total of 30 STL scans were produced ( Results: The mean degree of deviation for scan bodies was as follows: TRIOS 5 (1.11 ± 0.06 mm), Runyes 3DS (1.02 ± 0.05 mm), and conventional (0.82 ± 0.16 mm). Statistically significant differences were found among all impression methods ( Conclusion: While both conventional methods and digital scans have their merits, traditional impression methods may offer improved trueness in full-arch implant cases. Utilizing the open-tray system with suitable materials and methods can enhance precision and lead to more reliable outcomes.
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.