ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2026
Influence of Scan Body Geometry, Implant Angulation, and Interimplant Distance on the Accuracy of Maxillary Full-Arch Digital Implant Scans: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study compared the accuracy of different scan body geometries under different implant angulation and interimplant distance conditions. Evidence regarding full-arch digital implant scanning under these conditions remains limited. MATERIAL AND METHODS In this in vitro study, 5 implants were placed in maxillary edentulous plaster models representing 3 implant systems (Bioinfinity, Meisinger, and Mode). The reference implant was positioned perpendicular to the ridge crest at the midline. Implant angulations (5° and 10°) and interimplant distances (5 mm and 10 mm) were standardized. Scan bodies were attached to the master model, and each model was scanned 10 times using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 5). Three-dimensional deviations were calculated. Data were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests (alpha=0.05). RESULTS No significant differences were observed among the groups at 5° angulation (P>0.05), whereas significant differences were detected at 10° angulation for implants 1 and 5 (P<0.01). Bioinfinity showed higher deviation values at implant 1, while Meisinger demonstrated higher deviations at implant 5. At a 10-mm interimplant distance (implants 1 and 2), significant differences were found among the groups (P<0.001), with Bioinfinity exhibiting lower deviation values. At a 5-mm distance, no significant difference was observed at implant 4 (P>0.05), whereas a significant difference was found at implant 5 (P<0.001), with the highest deviation in the Meisinger group. CONCLUSIONS Increased implant angulation and interimplant distance are associated with reduced accuracy and higher deviation values in digital full-arch scans. The influence of scan body geometry varies depending on implant position.
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.