ArticleClinical oral implants research2026
Investigations of Intraoral Scan Body Extensions. Effect of Design on the Accuracy, Usability, and Feasibility for Digital Full-Arch Implant Scans In Vitro.
Article in Clinical oral implants research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effect of different scan body extension designs on the accuracy, usability, and feasibility of digital full-arch implant impressions in an edentulous mandibular model. Accuracy was expressed as trueness and precision, usability as scan time, and feasibility as the number of total scan failures. MATERIAL AND
methodsAn edentulous mandibular model with four implants was fabricated with minimal surface morphology. Five scan body extension configurations were tested: no extensions (control), commercially available extensions, conventional impression copings used as extensions, and two morphological 3D-printed extensions oriented between adjacent implants or toward the center of the arch. Two intraoral scanners were used. For each scanner and configuration, 30 scans were acquired. Inter-implant distances were compared against coordinate measuring machine reference values. Trueness was assessed as mean absolute deviation, precision as standard deviation, and differences were analyzed with non-parametric tests.
resultsThe highly morphological scan body extensions produced the most consistent improvements. Combined across scanners, trueness improved by 40-57 μm relative to control for the longest inter-implant span. Precision improved significantly for the center-oriented configuration. All scan body extension techniques reduced scan time by 18%-41% and reduced scan failures from 13% (control) to 3% for the morphological designs. Improvements were most pronounced for longer spans and varied between scanners.
conclusionsHighly morphological 3D-printed scan body extensions significantly improved the accuracy, usability, and feasibility of complete-arch digital implant impressions compared to an unmodified control workflow. Clinical validation is required to confirm these findings for broader use.
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.