Influence of substructure material on the scanning accuracy and scannability of implant-supported full arch bar substructures.

Nourhan S Emam, Nayrouz Adel Metwally, Mohamed Moataz Khamis

Abstract readClinical Trial

In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nourhan S EmamLecturer of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Zagazig University, AlSharqia, Egypt. nourhan.samy.dent@alexu.edu.eg.

Nayrouz Adel MetwallyDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.

Mohamed Moataz KhamisDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bar substructures may be utilized for fixed full-arch implant-supported restorations, where suprastructures are cemented as prosthetic shells. Certain clinical situations may necessitate intraoral scanning of the bar substructures. However, the scannability and the accuracy of the intraoral scans remain unclear. This study aimed to compare and assess the scannability and the scan accuracy of two different bar materials used for implant-supported prostheses. Two maxillary implant-supported substructures (bars) were milled from 2 different materials. Group I from titanium and Group II from poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK). The substructures were digitized by using a desktop scanner (Medit MD-1D0410, Medit Corp). The STL file produced was considered the reference. Each substructure was scanned intraorally (n = 10) by using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (Medit i700; Medit Corp). The non-captured surface area in a preset time limit of 15 s (scannability) was assessed in (mm

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsDental Prosthesis DesignDental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedBenzophenonesHumansKetonesPolyethylene GlycolsPolymersTitaniumBenzophenonesDental ImplantsKetonespolyetheretherketonePolyethylene GlycolsPolymersTitaniumAccuracyDigitizationImplant-supported prosthodonticsPEEK barScannabilityTitanium barTrueness and precision

Identifiers

PMID41339678

DOI10.1038/s41598-025-28419-2

PMCPMC12678416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.