ArticleClinical oral implants research2026
Segmented Intraoral Scanning With a Palatal Marker for Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impressions: An In Vitro Comparative Study.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare four complete-arch implant impression workflows-segmented right/left IOS merged via a palatal marker (IOS-LEGO-Seg), continuous full-arch IOS with a palatal marker (IOS-LEGO-Full), continuous full-arch IOS without a palatal marker (IOS-Full), and a conventional open-tray PVS impression followed by cast fabrication and cast scanning (CI)-and to evaluate whether segmentation combined with a palatal marker improves agreement with a laboratory reference dataset in a maxillary edentulous model. MATERIAL AND
methodsA maxillary edentulous dental cast with six implants was used to compare IOS-LEGO-Seg, IOS-LEGO-Full, IOS-Full, and CI. Intraoral scans were acquired, with 10 repetitions per condition. Datasets were superimposed onto a master reference scan using three alveolar-ridge markers; the palatal marker was excluded. The primary outcome was the concordance rate, defined as the proportion of intraoral scan body surface points within ±50 μm of the reference. A linear mixed-effects model was used to compare workflows (α = 0.05).
resultsIOS-LEGO-Seg achieved the highest concordance, followed by IOS-LEGO-Full, IOS-Full, and CI (p < 0.001). The concordance rate was comparable between the IOS-LEGO-Full and IOS-Full groups, indicating that the addition of a palatal marker alone did not improve accuracy. Site-specific analysis revealed lower concordance at the distal molars (#16 and #26) in the non-segmented IOS workflows; however, this effect was mitigated by the segmented approach. The CI group did not show site-specific differences.
conclusionsThe segmented workflow with a palatal marker may represent an accessible strategy for improving the accuracy of maxillary complete-arch implant impressions.
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.