ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparison between accuracies of intraoral scanning and photogrammetry techniques performed with various devices in full-arch implant impressions.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the distance and angular accuracy of current intraoral scanners and photogrammetry devices in a full-arch implant model.
methodsSix multi-unit abutment replicas (Astra Tech EV) were placed on an edentulous maxillary model. Scan bodies were placed on the replicas, and a reference model was obtained with a laboratory scanner (inEos X5). Intraoral scannings were made with three different scanners (Primescan, Trios 5, iTero Lumina) and photogrammetry impressions were made after inserting the optical markers of two different devices (PIC system, Oxo Core) into the replicas (n:10). The data obtained from five different study groups and the reference model were transferred to a reverse engineering program (Geomagic) and, the distance and angular accuracy between the analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed with Shapiro-Wilk test for normality, followed by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests and one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni tests (α = 0.05).
resultsPrimescan gave the best results in terms of distance trueness (24.75 ± 17.11 μm), while Trios 5 yielded the most deviation (202.01 ± 44.04 μm). Primescan (0.26°) and Pic system (0.28°) were the most accurate study groups in terms of angular trueness. There was no statistically significant difference among the groups in precision comparison.
conclusionsPrimescan yielded most accurate results in terms of both distance and angular parameters. Less distance accuracy for Trios 5 and angular accuracy for Oxo Core and iTero Lumina were observed in full-arch implant cases.
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.