ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2026
Matching accuracy between CT images and intraoral surface scans using glass-ceramic markers compared to gutta-percha markers.
Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study investigated the accuracy of matching computed tomography (CT) images and intraoral surface scans using glass-ceramic (GC) and conventional gutta-percha (GP) markers.
methodsA mandibular master model of the right posterior edentulous region (teeth 45-47) was prepared with three training implants, each with a scan body fixed at the anterior central, left posterior, and right posterior sites. The model was scanned 10 times using an intraoral scanner, and 10 CT matching templates with six GP markers (GPCTMTs) and 10 with six GC markers (GCCTMTs) were fabricated. Each template was mounted on the model for CT imaging and intraoral scanning under air conditions. CT imaging was also performed with the model immersed in water to simulate intraoral scattering. A dentist blinded to the study purpose used implant simulation software for matching, which was performed with GP with six markers (GPCTMT) and GC with three (GCCTMT-3) or six (GCCTMT-6) markers. The three-dimensional discrepancy (matching error) between the implant apex positions on CT images and corresponding positions from surface data was measured automatically, and the median of the three sites served as the representative value. Group comparisons were performed using the Steel-Dwass test.
resultsUnder both air and water conditions, GCCTMT-3 (air: 0.61, water: 0.65) and GCCTMT-6 (air: 0.58, water: 0.57) demonstrated significantly lower matching errors (mm) than those in GPCTMT (air: 1.98, water: 1.83).
conclusionsThis model-based study suggests that GC markers provide greater matching accuracy than GP markers for CT-surface data integration.
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.