ArticleBMC oral health2025
Effect of implant angulation on the trueness and precision of intraoral scanning and photogrammetry.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Implant Angulation on Digital Impression Accuracy of Three-Unit Implant-Supported Restorations.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of direct and digital measurements of peri-implant defects using CBCT, ultrasound, and intraoral scanning.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2026Article
- Digital versus conventional impression accuracy for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: AnBioinformation · 2026Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of implant angulation on the trueness and precision of intraoral scanning (IOS) using different prefabricated auxiliary device (PAD) designs and to compare the results with two photogrammetry (PG) systems. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree master models with 5 implants were fabricated to simulate edentulous maxillary arches, featuring implant configurations including all implants parallel, one implant angulated 25° mesially, and one implant angulated 25° distally. Five digital impression techniques were evaluated: IOS (Cerec Primescan) without PADs (IOS), with crown-shaped PADs (IOS-C), with laterally extended PADs (IOS-LE), and two PG systems (ICam4D G3: PG-I, OxoCore: PG-O). Reference data were acquired using a laboratory scanner, and implant center coordinates in both reference and test datasets were determined in Geomagic Control X for deviation calculations. Linear deviations (LD), angular deviations (AD), and root mean squared error (RMS) values were calculated to assess trueness and precision, and were statistically analyzed.
resultsSignificant accuracy differences were observed between the PG systems, with PG-I exhibiting the lowest RMS values (18 ± 3.27 μm) across all models and maintaining deviations within clinically acceptable thresholds (P<0.01). IOS-LE showed significantly lower RMS and AD values compared to IOS and IOS-C. Implant angulation negatively affected the trueness of IOS, IOS-C, and PG-O, particularly with distal angulation (P<0.01), while PG-I and IOS-LE remained unaffected (P > 0.05). Implant angulation did not significantly affect precision (P = 0.328).
conclusionPG-I demonstrated the highest accuracy. Implant angulation compromised IOS trueness, but laterally extended PADs improved accuracy, making IOS comparable to PG systems. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: These findings indicate that, even in angulated full‑arch implant cases, photogrammetry (PG‑I) and IOS with laterally extended PADs provide clinically acceptable accuracy and may serve as reliable digital impression techniques in practice.
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.