ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating the Accuracy of Two Intraoral Scanning Systems in Reproducing Implant Positions for Prosthetic Fabrication: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe integration of digital technologies in implant dentistry has enhanced the precision of prosthetic fabrications by minimizing errors associated with traditional impression methods. However, variations in the accuracy of intraoral scanning systems can impact the fit and function of implant-supported prostheses. This study compared the accuracy of the Medit i700 (Medit Corp, Seoul, Korea) and Dentsply Sirona intraoral scanning systems in replicating implant positions, using direct intraoral measurements as the reference standard.
methodsSix patients with 10 implant sites were included. Inclusion criteria involved stable implants with adjacent natural teeth. Direct intraoral distances from scan bodies to adjacent teeth were measured using a digital caliper. Digital scans were obtained for every site with both the Medit i700 and Dentsply Sirona (Dentsply Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) intraoral scanning systems, and three-dimensional (3D)-printed models were fabricated for measurement. To assess the accuracy of reproducibility in models, intercuspal distances and distances between the scan bodies and the nearest portion of adjacent teeth were measured. Accuracy was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsFor distances from scan bodies to adjacent teeth, the mean intraoral distance was 8.62 ± 4.28 mm. Medit i700 measurements (8.60 ± 4.25 mm) showed ICC = 1.00 and bias = 0.02 mm (limits: -0.10 to 0.14 mm). Dentsply Sirona (8.56 ± 4.34 mm) had ICC = 0.999 and bias = 0.05 mm (limits: -0.32 to 0.43 mm), indicating greater variability. For intercuspal distances, measurements were similar (Medit: 5.95 ± 0.77 mm; Sirona: 5.93 ± 0.76 mm; ICC = 0.999).
conclusionThe Medit i700 demonstrated superior accuracy over the Dentsply Sirona system, due to its advanced features and recent manufacturing. This supports its preference for precise implant prosthetics.
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.