ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2026
Impact of scanning errors on the trueness of digital implant impressions.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn dentistry, digital technologies have become firmly established in the field of oral implantology. The trueness of impressions taken using intraoral scanners as part of the digital workflow has a direct influence on the accuracy of fit of the subsequent restoration. Therefore, this in-vitro study investigates the influence of possible scanning errors on the trueness of digital implant impressions.
methodsA standardized titanium model of a maxillary alveolar ridge with three bone-level implants was digitized with two different scan body systems (Medentika and NT-Training) using an industrial high-precision scanner to generate the virtual reference models. Subsequently, three different modifications, including two different gingival heights and artificially created defects, were each digitized 15 times using two different intraoral scanners (Primescan and Trios 4) with both scan body systems. The digitized scan bodies were then matched with the scan body analogs in the Exocad software to generate the virtual working models. Trueness was examined by superimposing the virtual working models with the corresponding virtual reference model.
resultsAll scanning errors evaluated resulted in significantly higher deviations. Across all groups, the trueness decreased with increasing gingival height. The best results (30 ± 15 μm) were attained when scanning at the lower gingival height. The largest discrepancy (178 ± 63 μm) was found when impressions of the higher gingival height were taken.
conclusionIn the process of taking digital implant impressions, it is essential to maximize the exposure of the scan bodies. Furthermore, it is imperative to minimize defects in order to achieve optimal outcomes.
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.