ArticleBDJ open2025
Influence of scan body geometry on the trueness of intraoral scanning.
Article in BDJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary Evaluation of a Hybrid Scan Transfer Workflow for Complex Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitations.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- PEEK Intraoral Scan Bodies-A Scoping Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- [Assistance and breakthrough of digitalization and intelligent digitalization in implant restoration of edentulous jaws].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2026Article
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
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the influence of scan body geometry on the trueness of intraoral scanner (IOS) acquisitions.
methodsAn in vitro study was conducted using three groups of scan bodies with varying designs. Trueness was assessed by measuring deviations from a reference model obtained using a high-precision industrial scanner. Three model types were analyzed: a fully edentulous with six implants, a partially dentate with four implants, and a partially dentate with two implants.
resultsIn all models, the reduced-length scan body (Group 2) showed the highest trueness, with the lowest mean deviations: 87 μm (6-implant model), 104 μm (4-implant model), and 10 μm (2-implant model). The standard design (Group 1) showed moderate deviations, while the more complex design with three flat surfaces (Group 3) consistently showed the highest deviations. Shorter, simpler designs performed best across all configurations.
conclusionsScan body geometry, particularly length and head design, plays a critical role in scanning accuracy. Simplified, shorter scan bodies enhance trueness, while greater height or geometric complexity may compromise it. These findings suggest that optimizing scan body geometry-particularly reducing height-can enhance the accuracy of digital implant impressions, with potential implications for improving reliability in implant-supported prosthetic workflows.
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.