ArticleBMC oral health2026
Digital impression accuracy of a novel scannable healing abutment: an in vitro study with three intraoral scanners.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis in vitro study aimed to evaluate the digital impression accuracy of a novel scannable healing abutment (s-HA) compared to a conventional scan body (CSB) using three intraoral scanners (IOSs) on a single implant.
methodsA maxillary partially edentulous model with an implant analog in the right first molar site was fabricated. The model with the exposed analog was scanned using ATOS Q to obtain Standard Tessellation Language (STL) file as the reference model. After installation of the artificial gingiva, the CSB and the s-HA were scanned ten times using three IOSs: Primescan, Trios 4, and Aoralscan 3, resulting in 60 STL files as the test models. The test models were imported to exocad DentalCAD to obtain implant positions. After model processing, distance and angular deviations were calculated by superimposing the test models over the reference model in Geomagic Control X. Statistical analyses were performed with the Generalized Additive Models for Location, Scale, and Shape framework for trueness and precision (α = 0.05).
resultsFor distance trueness, the s-HA exhibited lower deviation than the CSB with Primescan (p < 0.001) and Trios 4 (p = 0.003), but not with Aoralscan 3 (p = 0.200). For angular trueness, the s-HA showed lower deviation than the CSB with Primescan (p = 0.043), Trios 4 (p < 0.001), and Aoralscan 3 (p = 0.011). Primescan achieved the highest trueness paired with s-HA with distance deviation of 49.5 μm and angular deviation of 0.0737 degrees. In terms of precision, the s-HA significantly improved the angular precision of Trios 4 (p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe s-HA showed higher digital impression accuracy than the CSB, and the results were influenced by the type of IOS used.
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.