ArticleBMC oral health2026
Influence of arch form on the accuracy of digital workflow in all-on-four implant rehabilitation cases (an in vitro 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVariations in arch form may influence the accuracy of digital impressions for implant-retained fixed dental prostheses. Differences in arch width, curvature, and span length can affect scanning continuity and data stitching, potentially impacting trueness and precision during full-arch acquisition. However, the extent to which arch form and scanning strategy interact to influence digital impression accuracy remains unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of arch form on the accuracy of the digital work flow of implant-retained fixed dental prostheses.
methodsThree maxillary edentulous full-arch models with different forms-ovoid (O), tapered (T), and square (S)-were 3D printed. Four implants were placed in each model and loaded with scan bodies. Reference scans were obtained using a high-precision laboratory scanner. Each model was scanned with a Medit i700 intraoral scanner (IOS) using three scanning strategies Linear (L), S-curve (S), and Wave (W). Each strategy was performed 10 times per model, generating 90 STL files. Trueness and precision were evaluated using Geomagic Control X software and statistically analyzed (α = 0.05).
resultsArch form significantly influenced trueness (p < 0.001), with the tapered arch demonstrating the highest trueness, followed by square and ovoid forms. Precision was significantly affected by arch form (p < 0.001) and scanning strategy (p = 0.006). The wave strategy showed significantly greater precision than the other strategies. No significant interaction was found between arch form and scanning strategy (p = 0.769).
conclusionWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, Arch morphology and scanning strategy significantly impact both the trueness and precision of full-arch implant scans. While tapered arches demonstrated statistically highest trueness and precision and the wave scanning strategy maximized precision, all tested combinations remained safely within the clinically acceptable threshold for passive prosthetic fit.
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.