ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2026
Comparative accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scans using full-scan and segmental-and-merge strategies.
Article in The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 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.
- From accuracy to clinical meaning in prosthodontic research.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2026Article
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
purposeFull-arch intraoral scanning often suffers from cumulative stitching errors. Segmental scanning using overlapping segments followed by digital merging has been proposed as a potential solution, but quantitative evidence remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of three intraoral scanning strategies-full-arch, 3-segment merging, and 5-segment merging-in both wired and wireless intraoral scanners (IOSs) using combined linear-distance and surface-based analyses. MATERIALS AND
methodsA maxillary typodont with three 2-mm metallic reference spheres was scanned using two IOSs (Medit i700 and i700 Wireless). Each scanner acquired 10 full-arch, 3-segment, and 5-segment scans; segmental scans were merged in Exocad. Accuracy was assessed in Geomagic Control X as: (1) trueness and precision of three inter-sphere distances (right molar-incisor, left molar-incisor, inter-molar) and (2) global surface root-mean-square (RMS) deviation and the percentage of points within ± 100 µm. Group differences were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner tests.
resultsAcross both IOSs, the 3-segment strategy consistently demonstrated the lowest linear deviation and variability, particularly for the inter-molar distance, while full-arch scans exhibited the greatest errors. Segmental scanning strategies resulted in significantly lower global RMS deviation and higher in-tolerance percentages than full-arch scans (RMS decreased from ~68 - 74 µm to 55 - 60 µm; in-tolerance increased from ~87 - 89% to > 93%). No significant differences in trueness, precision, RMS deviation, or in-tolerance percentage were observed between the wired and wireless scanners.
conclusionSegmental-and-merge scanning strategy enhances the accuracy of complete-arch IOS acquisition and is unaffected by wired versus wireless data transmission.
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.