ArticleJournal of Indian Prosthodontic Society2026
Accuracy of master casts fabricated for "all on 4" and "all on 6" implant situation in maxillary arch as influenced by the number of digital scan bodies: An in vitro comparative study.
Article in Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the number of intraoral scan bodies (ISBs) on the accuracy of digital impressions and the resulting master casts in full-arch maxillary implant rehabilitations in "all-on-4" and "all-on-6" situations. SETTINGS AND
designThis was an in vitro comparative study. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty-two digital impressions were obtained for all-on-4 (Group A) and all-on-6 (Group B) implant situations. Group A had three scan situations-1, 2, and 3-using 1, 2, and 4 scan bodies, respectively. Group B had four scan situations-1, 2, 3, and 4-employing 1, 2, 4, and 6 scan bodies, respectively, with six scans per situation. Linear and angular measurements were digitally evaluated by superimposing STL files onto reference models using Geomagic Control X. One master cast was fabricated for each scan situation, and verification jigs were assessed for passivity and fit. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Data were analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk test to confirm normal distribution, followed by one-sample t-test for comparison of linear and angular deviations between scan and reference models (p < 0.05).
resultsIn Group A, regardless of the scan situation, the differences in the measurements between the scan and reference model were statistically significant. In Group B, the study showed that scan situation 4 yielded the most accurate measurements when compared with reference model (P = 0.136). In both Groups A and B, master models fabricated using four and six scan bodies, respectively, exhibited the best passive fit of the verification jig.
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, scan body quantity significantly influenced digital impression accuracy in full-arch implant prosthodontics. All-on-4 achieved reliable results with two ISBs but benefited from four for angular accuracy, while all-on-6 required six ISBs for optimal trueness and passive fit, underscoring their importance in complex rehabilitations.
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.