ArticleBMC oral health2026
A comparative in vitro study of the accuracy and precision of different intraoral scanners for implant-supported hybrid prostheses 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. 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.
- Present and Future of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Orthodontics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe accuracy and precision of intraoral scanners (IOSs) are critical factors for achieving a passive fit in implant-supported hybrid prostheses (ISHP). However, limited evidence is available regarding the comparative performance of different IOSs in complete-arch implant cases. This in vitro study aimed to simultaneously evaluate and compare the trueness and repeatability of six contemporary IOS systems in capturing mandibular ISHP impressions.
methodsA mandibular acrylic model with five implant analogs was scanned using an industrial scanner (Zeiss Comet 6) to obtain a reference dataset. Six IOSs (Primescan, Trios 4, Trios 3, Medit i500, Virtuo Vivo, and Emerald S) were each used to scan the model five times by a single operator under controlled laboratory conditions. All test scans were superimposed on the reference using Geomagic Control X software, and root mean square (RMS) values were calculated to assess accuracy. Precision was determined using the coefficient of variation (CV). Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Games–Howell post-hoc tests (α = 0.05).
resultsSignificant differences were observed among scanners (p < 0.05). Primescan exhibited the highest trueness (0.0411 ± 0.0058 mm), followed by Trios 4 and Trios 3, whereas Emerald S demonstrated the lowest trueness (0.056 ± 0.0068 mm). The Trios 3 demonstrated the greatest repeatability (CV = 0.021), while Virtuo Vivo exhibited the lowest (CV = 0.179).
conclusionScanner selection significantly influences digital impression accuracy for ISHP. The Primescan and Trios systems provided superior trueness and precision, respectively, highlighting their clinical advantage in full-arch implant rehabilitations. Clinicians should consider the optical technology and demonstrated performance of IOSs when integrating digital workflows for complex implant-supported restorations.
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.