ArticleBMC oral health2026
Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impressions using conventional scanbodies, ScanTransfers, and splinted ScanTransfers: 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy, in terms of trueness and precision, of complete-arch digital implant impressions obtained using various scanbody configurations, and to assess the influence of the scanned arch and intraoral scanner on accuracy.
methodsThis study used edentulous maxillary and mandibular resin models with six implants per arch. Three scanbody configurations were evaluated: conventional scanbodies (SB), ScanTransfers (ST), and splinted ScanTransfers (SST). Each configuration was applied to both arches and scanned using two intraoral scanners (3Shape® TRIOS® 4 and Medit® i700 Wireless). Fifteen scans were obtained per subgroup. Reference datasets were acquired using a laboratory scanner. Trueness and precision were quantified as root-mean-square (RMS) deviations after three-dimensional alignment. Statistical analysis included the Kruskal–Wallis H test and Mann–Whitney U test, with Bonferroni correction (α = 0.05).
resultsScanbody configuration significantly influenced both trueness and precision (p < 0.001). The SST group demonstrated the highest trueness (78.54 ± 20.71 μm) and precision (63.40 ± 18.30 μm), while SB and ST showed higher discrepancies. No significant differences were observed between the maxillary and mandibular arches for trueness or precision (p > 0.05), or between scanners (p = 0.198); however, precision was significantly higher with the TRIOS® 4 than with the Medit® i700 Wireless (p = 0.006). All accuracy values fell within previously reported ranges.
conclusionsScanbody design and splinting influence the reliability of complete-arch digital implant impressions, while arch type appears to have a limited impact. Scanner-related differences may affect reproducibility.
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.