ArticleBMC oral health2026
Accuracy of digital impressions for implant fixed dental prostheses in partial and complete maxillary edentulous arches: effect of intraoral scanners and implant position.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a lack of comprehensive comparative data assessing the accuracy of multiple intraoral scanners (IOSs) across both partially and completely edentulous cases, particularly in the presence of variable implant positions. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of IOSs and implant positions in 4-unit and All-on-4 restorations on the trueness and precision of digital impressions.
methodsTwo maxillary resin models were fabricated: a partially edentulous arch planned for a 4-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) with implants at the canine and first molar sites, and a completely edentulous arch for an All-on-4 FDP. Each model was scanned (n = 10 each) using five IOSs: Omnicam AF, CS 3800, Trios 3 A, Medit i500, and Primescan AC. Scan data were analyzed using Geomagic Control X to assess trueness and precision. Statistical analysis was performed using three-way ANOVA, followed by two-way ANOVA and post hoc testing (p < 0.05).
resultsRegarding trueness in the 4-unit FDP group, CS3800 exhibited the highest RMS in anterior and posterior implants. In the All-on-4 group, Trios and Medit i500 showed the lowest RMS in anterior implants, and Medit i500 showed the lowest RMS in posterior implants. CS3800 showed the highest RMS in both the implant positions. Regarding precision in the 4-unit FDP group, Trios and Primescan achieved the lowest RMS. CS3800 and Medit i500 showed the highest RMS in posterior implants. In All-on-4, Omnicam showed the least RMS in anterior implants, while Primescan the least in posterior implants. All scanners showed less precision in posterior implants in both models.
conclusionsUnder controlled in vitro conditions, differences in trueness and precision were observed among intraoral scanners, depending on implant position and restoration type. In All-on-4 restorations, Medit i500 showed the highest trueness. Whereas, in 4-unit FDPs, Trios 3 and Primescan exhibited the highest precision. Anterior and posterior implant positions exhibited varying levels of trueness and precision deviation across scanners. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Intraoral scanner accuracy is influenced by implant position and prosthesis configuration, with posterior implant positions generally exhibiting reduced precision under in vitro conditions. These findings represent statistically significant differences observed within an experimental model and do not establish scanner ranking, clinical acceptability thresholds, or in vivo scanner suitability.
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.