[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-437006-105":59,"doc-detail-437006-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","evaluating-the-accuracy-of-two-intraoral-scanning-systems-in-reproducing-implant-positions-for-prosthetic-fabrication-a-cross-sectional-comparative-study","Evaluating the Accuracy of Two Intraoral Scanning Systems in Reproducing Implant Positions for Prosthetic Fabrication - A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study","","Digital technologies in implant dentistry improve prosthetic fabrication precision by reducing errors inherent to conventional impression procedures. Accuracy differences between intraoral scanning (IOS) systems can still affect the fit and function of implant-supported prostheses. This cross-sectional comparative study evaluated the Medit i700 and Dentsply Sirona IOS systems using direct intraoral measurements as the reference standard, focusing on reproducibility of implant positions.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/evaluating-the-accuracy-of-two-intraoral-scanning-systems-in-reproducing-implant-positions-for-prosthetic-fabrication-a-cross-sectional-comparative-study/437006/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/evaluating-the-accuracy-of-two-intraoral-scanning-systems-in-reproducing-implant-positions-for-prosthetic-fabrication-a-cross-sectional-comparative-study/437006.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Cipher","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-04","2026-09-29",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",14,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What was the purpose of comparing Medit i700 and Dentsply Sirona in this study?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"The study aimed to compare how accurately each intraoral scanning system reproduces implant positions used for prosthetic fabrication. It also assessed reproducibility using direct intraoral measurements as the reference standard.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"How were intraoral measurements obtained in the study?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"Six patients with 10 implant sites were included. Direct intraoral distances were measured from scan bodies to adjacent teeth using a digital caliper, and digital scans were obtained for each site with both IOS systems.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"Which system showed better accuracy, and what conclusion was drawn?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"Medit i700 demonstrated superior accuracy compared with Dentsply Sirona. The conclusion supports preferring Medit i700 for precise implant prosthetics based on the measured outcomes.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},437006,1790718421,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":145,"read_time":41,"preview_page_count":4},687208528416,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","Received 11/08/2025  \nReview began 11/12/2025  \nReview ended 11/28/2025  \nPublished 12/05/2025  \n© Copyright 2025  \nMenon et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0. , which permits unrestricted use , distribution , and reproduction in any medium , provided the original author and source are credited.  \nDOI: 10.7759/cureus.98548  \nOpen Access Original Article  \nPublished via Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham Healthcare Campus  \nEvaluating the Accuracy of Two Intraoral Scanning Systems in Reproducing Implant Positions for Prosthetic Fabrication: A CrossSectional Comparative Study  \nShankar S. Menon 1, Biju Balakrishnan 1, Arun Kurumathur Vasudevan 1  \n1. Periodontics, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, IND Corresponding author: Shankar S. Menon, [shankarsanjeevkrishna26@gmail.com](shankarsanjeevkrishna26@gmail.com)  \nAbstract  \nBackground: The integration of digital technologies in implant dentistry has enhanced the precision of prosthetic fabrications by minimizing errors associated with traditional impression methods. However, variations in the accuracy of intraoral scanning systems can impact the fit and function of implantsupported prostheses. This study compared the accuracy of the Medit i700 (Medit Corp, Seoul, Korea) and Dentsply Sirona intraoral scanning systems in replicating implant positions, using direct intraoral measurements as the reference standard.  \nMethods: Six patients with 10 implant sites were included. Inclusion criteria involved stable implants with adjacent natural teeth. Direct intraoral distances from scan bodies to adjacent teeth were measured using a digital caliper. Digital scans were obtained for every site with both the Medit i700 and Dentsply Sirona (Dentsply Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) intraoral scanning systems, and three-dimensional (3D)-printed models were fabricated for measurement. To assess the accuracy of reproducibility in models, intercuspal distances and distances between the scan bodies and the nearest portion of adjacent teeth were measured. Accuracy was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis.  \nResults: For distances from scan bodies to adjacent teeth, the mean intraoral distance was 8.62 ± 4.28 mm. Medit i700 measurements (8 .60 ± 4.25 mm) showed ICC = 1.00 and bias = 0 .02 mm (limits: -0.10 to 0.14 mm) . Dentsply Sirona (8 .56 ± 4.34 mm) had ICC = 0 .999 and bias = 0 .05 mm (limits: -0.32 to 0.43 mm), indicating greater variability. For intercuspal distances, measurements were similar (Medit: 5.95 ± 0.77 mm; Sirona:  \n5.93 ± 0.76 mm; ICC = 0 .999) .  \nConclusion: The Medit i700 demonstrated superior accuracy over the Dentsply Sirona system, due to its advanced features and recent manufacturing. This supports its preference for precise implant prosthetics.  \nCategories: Medical Education, Public Health, Dentistry  \nKeywords: accuracy comparison, dentsply sirona, implant positions, intraoral scanning systems, medit i700, prosthetic fabrication  \nIntroduction  \nThe field of implant dentistry has undergone a significant transformation with the integration of digital technologies in impression taking for prosthetic restorations. Traditional methods involving elastomeric materials have long been the standard, but they are prone to distortions from material shrinkage, improper handling, or patient movement [1] . Intraoral scanning (IOS) systems have emerged as a reliable alternative, capturing three-dimensional (3D) images of the oral cavity through optical principles such as confocal microscopy or triangulation [2] . The evolution of IOS systems dates back to the 1980s with the introduction of the CEREC system (Dentsply Sirona, Bensheim, Germany), which utilized structured light for image acquisition [3] . Subsequent advancements have included the shift to powder-free scanning, color imaging, wireless designs, and integration of artificial intelli","cbCaifrmc6ya3qs7","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaifrmc6ya3qs7","pdf",2842274,12,"English","# Abstract\n## Background\n## Methods\n## Results\n## Conclusion\n# Introduction","[{\"question\":\"What was the purpose of comparing Medit i700 and Dentsply Sirona in this study?\",\"answer\":\"The study aimed to compare how accurately each intraoral scanning system reproduces implant positions used for prosthetic fabrication. It also assessed reproducibility using direct intraoral measurements as the reference standard.\"},{\"question\":\"How were intraoral measurements obtained in the study?\",\"answer\":\"Six patients with 10 implant sites were included. Direct intraoral distances were measured from scan bodies to adjacent teeth using a digital caliper, and digital scans were obtained for each site with both IOS systems.\"},{\"question\":\"Which system showed better accuracy, and what conclusion was drawn?\",\"answer\":\"Medit i700 demonstrated superior accuracy compared with Dentsply Sirona. The conclusion supports preferring Medit i700 for precise implant prosthetics based on the measured outcomes.\"}]","Evaluating the Accuracy of Two Intraoral Scanning Systems in Reproducing Implant Positions for Prosthetic Fabrication - A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study | PDF",1790679793]