ArticleScientific reports2025
Digital impression accuracy for bone-level and tissue-level implants using scan bodies of different heights.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Effect of three-segment scanning on the accuracy of intraoral scans in full-arch implant-supported rehabilitation: an in vitro study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2026Article
- PEEK Intraoral Scan Bodies-A Scoping Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Intraoral scanning has gained acceptance for its accuracy comparable to conventional implant impressions. This study compared digital impression accuracy based on implant placement level and scan body height. Two mandibular partial edentulous models missing the left second premolar and first molar, were used: one with a tissue level implant and the other with a bone level implant. Models were divided into four groups: Group TS-S (bone level, short scan bodies), Group TS-R (bone level, Regular scan bodies), Group SS-S (tissue level, short scan bodies), and Group SS-R (tissue level, Regular scan bodies). Each group was scanned with a model scanner for reference STL files and two intraoral scanners (IOSs; Medit i700, Cerec Primescan) for experimental STL files. Deviation between experimental and reference STL files was measured. The Medit i700 demonstrated smaller scan discrepancies compared to the CEREC Primescan. For both intraoral scanners, the use of short scan bodies resulted in higher trueness than regular scan bodies. Tissue level implants exhibited greater trueness and precision than bone level implants (p < 0.05). These findings indicate that both the implant placement level and scan body height are factors that can influence the accuracy of digital impressions.
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.