ArticleInternational dental journal2026
In Vivo Complete Arch Implant Impressions: Comparison of the Linear Precision of Digital and Conventional Techniques.
Article in International dental journal, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aims of this in vivo study were to determine which implant impression technique has the best in-mouth precision and to analyse whether the maxillary or mandibular position of the implants and the increase in the interimplant distance affect the precision.
methodsA fully edentulous patient rehabilitated with 8 implants in each arch was included in this in vivo study. Five impressions per technique and arch were obtained using 6 impression techniques: closed tray (IT), unsplinted direct technique (UDT), acrylic resin-splinted direct technique (ASDT), metal-splinted direct technique (MSDT), stereophotogrammetry (PIC system), and intraoral scanning (Trios). Precision was evaluated by comparing 28 Euclidean interabutment distances per impression. A threshold of 75 μm was used as a reference value based on previously published implant misfit studies.
resultsWithin the limitations of this study, the PIC system showed the highest precision among the evaluated techniques with 95% of the values <75 μm for the mandibular arch and 99% for the maxillary arch. The IT technique did not result in differences in the precision between the maxillary and the mandibular arches (P = .663); the other techniques showed statistically significant differences between the maxillary and the mandibular positions of the implants (P < .001).
conclusionsSignificant differences were observed when comparing the precision of the 6 techniques, with the PIC system tending to show the highest precision within the limitations of this study. Statistically significant differences were also obtained between the maxillary arch and the mandibular arch within each technique and the precision decreased as the interimplant distance increased, particularly for the T technique.
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.