ArticleBMC oral health2025
Alignment optimization in digital implantology: evaluating the role of scan body modifications and different software.
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 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.
- Trueness and Precision of Intraoral Scanners for 3D-Printed Orthodontic Models with Attachments: An In Vitro Comparative Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlignment accuracy in digital impressions is critical for implant-supported prostheses. This in vitro study evaluated the effects of scan body modifications and alignment software on digital impression accuracy. MATERIALS AND
methodsA printed maxillary model with a unilateral distal edentulous area included analogs at positions No. 25 and No. 27. Three scan body groups were tested: unmodified (M0), additive (M+), and subtractive (M−). Each was scanned 10 times using an intraoral scanner. Alignment was performed in Exocad and Medit Link software. Experimental scans were compared with a reference model using the best-fit method. Linear and angular.
resultsMean linear deviations ranged from 0.04–0.07 mm and angular deviations from 0.23°–0.63°. Medit Link produced significantly lower deviations than Exocad (p < 0.001, p = 0.001). Unmodified scan bodies showed the highest accuracy, and implant position also influenced results (p < 0.001).
conclusionsBoth scan body modifications and alignment software significantly affected matching accuracy. Appropriate software can reduce implant misfits and improve prosthetic outcomes. These preclinical findings highlight the potential of advanced algorithms-based alignment approaches to enhance reliability under challenging conditions. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.