ArticleBMC oral health2026
Effect of a modified scanning technique on the accuracy of complete-arch implant scanning: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis in vitro study aimed to investigate the accuracy of a modified scanning technique that incorporated a simple scan aid (SSA) and a novel scanning pattern (segmented scanning pattern, SSP) for complete-arch implant scan.
methodsAn edentulous maxillary stone cast with 4 parallel analogs was used as the master model. 10 scans were performed with an intraoral scanner (Trios3) using different scanning methods: a conventional scanning pattern (CSP) without SSA (Group I), CSP with SSA (Group II), SSP with SSA (Group III) and conventional splinted open-tray impression (Group IV). The reference scan was obtained by digitizing the master model using a dental laboratory scanner. The related files were imported into inspection software for trueness and precision assessment. One-way ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, SNK-q and Bonferroni test were used to evaluate the values. The level of significance was set at α=0.05.
resultsFor the overall accuracy assessment (trueness and precision), group I exhibited the largest linear and angular deviation (p<0.001) followed by group II (p<0.001). For local accuracy assessment, all intraoral scan bodies (ISB A, B, C, and D) exhibited smaller linear and angular deviations in group III (p<0.05) and group IV (p<0.05) than that in group I. No differences were found between group III and IV (p>0.05), either in the overall accuracy or local accuracy assessment.
conclusionsSSA combined with SSP could significantly improve the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impressions.
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.