ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2026
Effect of three-segment scanning on the accuracy of intraoral scans in full-arch implant-supported rehabilitation: an in vitro study.
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
purposeTo evaluate the effect of three-segment scanning on the accuracy of digital impressions of full-arch implants obtained using intraoral scanners.
methodsAn edentulous master model with six implants was digitized using a laboratory scanner to create a reference scan. Three intraoral scanners (Primescan, Aoralscan 3 and Trios 5) and two scan strategies were evaluated (n = 10): full-scan (simultaneous full-arch scan) and segmented-scan (the arch categorized into three segments, scanned independently, and subsequently composed into a full-arch dataset) groups. The reference data were scanned using a laboratory scanner. Surface deviation was evaluated with a tolerance of ± 50 μm. The percentage of the total scan body surface area within this tolerance range was calculated as surface trueness. The overall distance deviation between scan bodies was measured to determine linear trueness and precision.
resultsFor Aoralscan 3 and Trios 5, the segmented-scan group showed higher surface trueness than the full-arch scan group, whereas Primescan showed no statistically significant difference between the scan strategies. The overall distance deviation showed no significant differences in trueness between the full-arch and segmented scans for Primescan, Aoralscan 3, or Trios 5 (all p > 0.05). However, precision was significantly higher under the segmented-scan condition than with full-arch scanning for all evaluated intraoral scanners (all p < 0.01).
conclusionsFor full-arch implant impressions using intraoral scanners, segmented scanning with subsequent composition into a full-arch digital model improved intraoral scanning accuracy compared with simultaneous full-arch scanning.
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.