ArticlePloS one2025
Accuracy of intraoral scanners for full-arch implant scanning in the Maxilla using horizontal scanbody.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Preliminary Evaluation of a Hybrid Scan Transfer Workflow for Complex Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitations.Dentistry journal · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This laboratory study evaluated the accuracy of six intraoral scanner models (Primescan; Trios 4; Trios 5; Medit i700; i900; Itero Lumina) compared to a desktop scanner (E4) used as a control. Additionally, the influence of the scan body design, horizontal (SBH) and short cylindrical (SBC), was investigated through two different software. A master model containing six implants was used, and the scanning workflow was standardized and repeated ten times (N = 10). The data were analyzed in terms of trueness and precision using two distinct types of analysis: one performed in Blender software (Stichting Blender Foundation) and the other in Evalumap software (Claronav). The lower the number the better precision and accuracy were noted. The position deviation (3D_dev) and angular deviation (Ang_dev) were evaluated. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Kruskal-Wallis test, Bonferroni correction, and multiple comparisons. Trueness (n = 1,437) showed a significant effect on 3D_dev (p < 0.001) and Ang_dev (p < 0.001), as well as for precision (n = 6,478) in 3D_dev (p < 0.001) and Ang_dev (p < 0.001). The lowest median values for trueness in 3D_dev were observed for the i900L (35.25) and in Ang_dev for Primescan (0.35), whereas the lowest precision values for 3D_dev were found for the iTero Lumina (18.81μm) and Ang_dev in i900L (0.19 μm). Regarding the scan body type, a significant difference was observed between SBH and SBC for both trueness and precision, with SBH presenting lower angular deviation values and SBC exhibiting lower 3D position deviations. Multiple comparisons revealed significant differences for the E4 scanner across all analyses. The choice of scanner impacts both the trueness and precision of the generated models, as does the scan body type and the software.
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.