ArticleBMC oral health2026
Digital workflow for implant-supported restorations in the mandible including reverse scan bodies: a feasibility study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompletely edentulous mandibles present a challenge for accurate intraoral scanning, which can compromise the passive fit of implant-supported restorations. Reverse scan bodies may improve the accuracy of implant position transfer and support a fully digital workflow. However, clinical evidence for their use in the edentulous mandible remains limited.
methodsIn this single-patient prospective clinical evaluation, one fully edentulous mandible restored with two interforaminal implants was scanned ten times using an intraoral scanner (IOS). Based on each scan, titanium verification bars (VBs) were fabricated, and their passive fit was assessed clinically. After sectioning and intraoral re-splinting, splinted verification bars (SVBs) were digitized using reverse scan bodies and a laboratory scanner to fabricate new verification bars (NVBs). Linear and angular deviations between datasets (IOS, VB, SVB, NVB) were analyzed using metrology software and statistically evaluated with Welch's ANOVA and post hoc tests (α = 0.05).
resultsAll VBs and NVBs demonstrated passive fit clinically. Mean linear deviations were 12 μm between IOS and VB, 50 μm between VB and SVB (p = 0.001), and 26 μm between SVB and NVB (p = 0.20). Mean angular deviations were 0.18° between IOS and VB, with six measurements > 0.4°; 0.79° between VB and SVB (p = 0.01), with seven measurements > 0.4°; and 0.06° between SVB and NVB, with four measurements > 0.4°.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this single-patient evaluation and the favorable two-implant mandibular configuration, intraoral scanning provided sufficient accuracy for fabricating passively fitting restorations on two implants in the edentulous mandible. Measurable linear and angular deviations did not compromise clinical fit in this case. The use of reverse scan bodies may be effective in cases of misfit after intraoral re-splinting, especially in more complex full-arch workflows, as only minor linear and angular deviations were observed in the NVBs with integrated abutments.
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.