19 July 2026 : Laboratory Research
Influence of Scan Body Geometry, Implant Angulation, and Interimplant Distance on the Accuracy of Maxillary Full-Arch Digital Implant Scans: An In Vitro Study
Ebru Sümer Ekin
ABCDEF 1*, Sozdar Başkan Uyar BCD 2, Merve Güler BFG 2, Emrah Ayna ACG 2
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.953734
Med Sci Monit 2026; 32:e953734
Table 1 Comparison of 3-dimensional deviation values according to implant angulation.
| Implant position | Group | Mean ± SD | Min–Max | Multiple comparisons (Tukey HSD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Implant 1 (10°)F = 6.815 = 0.004 | (1) Bioinfinity | 9.960 ± 1.180 | 8.500–12.200 | (2)(3) |
| (2) Mode | 8.670 ± 0.941 | 7.300–9.900 | (1) | |
| (3) Meisinger | 8.420 ± 0.855 | 6.300–9.400 | (1) | |
| Implant 2 (5°)F = 1.083 = 0.353 | (1) Bioinfinity | 5.350 ± 0.980 | 3.300–6.600 | ns |
| (2) Mode | 4.940 ± 0.587 | 3.700–5.600 | ns | |
| (3) Meisinger | 4.850 ± 0.814 | 3.600–6.700 | ns | |
| Implant 4 (5°)F = 1.188 = 0.320 | (1) Bioinfinity | 5.150 ± 0.784 | 3.600–6.200 | ns |
| (2) Mode | 5.490 ± 0.486 | 4.900–6.500 | ns | |
| (3) Meisinger | 5.670 ± 0.955 | 3.900–6.800 | ns | |
| Implant 5 (10°)F = 8.995 = 0.001 | (1) Bioinfinity | 10.140 ± 1.479 | 7.600–12.100 | (3) |
| (2) Mode | 9.360 ± 0.698 | 8.100–10.100 | (3) | |
| (3) Meisinger | 11.410 ± 0.947 | 9.90–12.90 | (1)(2) | |
| One-way ANOVA was used for statistical analysis, followed by Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) post hoc test for multiple comparisons. Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Numbers in parentheses indicate groups with statistically significant differences according to Tukey HSD test ( < 0.05). n = 10 per group. “ns” indicates no statistically significant difference ( > 0.05). | ||||