ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2026
Accuracy of Digital Impressions of Implants With Angulated and Different Vertical Positions in the Full Arch: An In Vitro Study.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 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.
- Accuracy of Digital Impressions of Implants With Angulated and Different Vertical Positions in the Full Arch: An In Vitro Study.International journal of dentistry · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The present in vitro study was conducted to evaluate the trueness and precision of full-arch digital impressions of implants with different angulations and vertical positions. Methods: Two angulated and two parallel fixtures were placed on two typodonts (subcrestal and crestal). Four scan bodies were fixed on the fixtures. Typodonts were scanned using 3Shape TRIOS 3 and Planmeca Emerald scanners. Furthermore, they were also scanned by a 3Shape D810 laboratory scanner as a reference. Subsequent to making a cross-section on the scan bodies, four points were obtained, out of which, six lines were traced. The obtained lines represented the distances between scan bodies. The differences of the distances in the scans prepared by the TRIOS 3 and Planmeca Emerald scanners were measured using the reference scanner and were analyzed using a paired Results: In subcrestal models, TRIOS 3 showed significant differences for distances 1-2, 1-3, and 2-4, while Planmeca Emerald showed significance only for 2-4. In crestal models, TRIOS 3 showed significant differences for 1-3, 1-4, 2-4, and 3-4, whereas Planmeca Emerald showed significance only for 2-4 after correction. Conclusions: The TRIOS 3 scanner showed higher trueness and precision in subcrestal and angulated implants, while the Planmeca Emerald showed slightly higher trueness at the crestal implants. Both scanners showed small deviations relative to the reference scanner, with TRIOS 3 demonstrating higher overall precision.
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.