ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2026
Impact of reference body position on linear and 3D accuracy of intraoral scans.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIntraoral scanners (IOS) are widely used in digital implant workflows, and their accuracy is typically evaluated in vitro using reference bodies to establish a coordinate system. While the impact of scanning strategy and evaluation methods on accuracy is well documented, the potential effect of the spatial position of the reference body itself on measured transfer accuracy has not been systematically investigated yet. This study aimed to evaluate whether the position of a reference body within a master model affects linear and three-dimensional (3D) accuracy outcomes of intraoral scan data.
methodsA partially edentulous maxillary implant master model with four implants (FDI #16, #14, #25, and #26) and two perpendicular cuboid-shaped reference bodies was scanned ten times each using Trios 4 and Primescan AC IOS. Each dataset was evaluated twice by aligning it either to reference body 1 (REF-1) or reference body 2 (REF-2), generating paired measurements from identical scans. Linear distances between implant-abutment interface points and 3D deviations from the reference bodies were calculated. Trueness and precision were assessed according to ISO 5725-1, and paired statistical comparisons were performed. Differences between REF-1 and REF-2 were evaluated by paired t-tests for trueness and variance-related tests for precision, with a significance level set at α = 0.05.
resultsFor both scanners, significant differences in trueness were observed between REF-1 and REF-2 for several linear distances and three-dimensional deviations (p < 0.05), despite identical scan datasets. Reference-dependent effects were more pronounced for three-dimensional deviations than for linear measurements. For selected distances, significant differences in precision were also detected (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe position of the reference body within a model significantly influences measured linear and 3D implant accuracy, independent of the IOS system used. Alignment reference position represents an independent source of systematic bias in digital accuracy assessments. These findings should be considered when designing, interpreting, and comparing accuracy studies in digital implant dentistry.
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.