{"paper_id":"0fcad93e-657c-4b28-8686-9ececa853526","body_text":"Evaluation of The Effect of Different Software Parameters and Scanning Methodologies on Digital Impression Accuracy | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Evaluation of The Effect of Different Software Parameters and Scanning Methodologies on Digital Impression Accuracy Çağrı Ural, Necati KALELİ, Parvin AHMADLI This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7040884/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 11 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of digital impressions depending on software parameters and different patient scenarios. Methods Five study groups were created by placing implants in two edentulous mandibular and a partially edentulous maxillary epoxy model. In the maxillary model, implants were placed at the central incisor with a 15º angle (Group 1A), first molar with 0º (Group 1P), and first-second molars with 0º (Group 2P). In the first edentulous mandibular model, two straight implants were placed in lateral incisor sites and two 30º angled implants in premolar sites (Group 4). The second mandibular model had six straight implants (Group 6). Models were digitized with a laboratory scanner to obtain reference data. Segmental scans were performed for Groups 1A, 1P, and 2P, while full-arch scans were performed for Groups 4 and 6. Scan depth was adjusted to minimum (12 mm) and maximum (21 mm) settings using intraoral scanner software. The STL data were generated and compared with reference scans to evaluate trueness; precision was assessed by intra-group comparison. One-way ANOVA and Student’s t-test were used (p < .05). Results Minimum scan depth produced less deviation than maximum scan depth in all groups, significantly in full-arch scans (p < .05). Angled implants showed higher deviations. Full-arch scans showed more deviation than segmental scans except in Group 1A. Group 2P had the least deviation for trueness, while Group 4 had the most. For precision, Group 1P had the least and Group 4 the highest deviation. Conclusions Intraoral scanners can be reliably used in various clinical scenarios. Although angled implants did not directly reduce accuracy, higher angulation increased deviations. Minimum scan depth improved accuracy by reducing interference from surrounding tissues. Full-arch scans benefited from more implants and shorter distances between them. Dental Implants Dental Technology Software Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Background In recent years, implant-supported restorations are considered as preferred treatments in the case of complete and partial edentulism 1 , 2 . Unlike natural teeth, implants can minimally tolerate errors that may occur in the final restoration as implants are ankylosed with bones 1 , 2 . Today, both conventional and digital impression methods are preferred to transfer the intraoral position of the implant to the laboratory for fabrication of implant-supported restorations 3 , 4 . Difficulties may occur during the use of conventional impression methods, especially in patients with gag reflex and geriatric patients. Many disadvantages, such as the use of light body impression materials, the need for an additional appointment, custom tray and impression materials during the use of the open tray impression technique, the disinfection process of the obtained impressions and the risk of cross contamination can occur during the use of conventional impression methods 5 , 6 . In the digital impression system, these disadvantages are eliminated, and a dentist can perform quick and easy interventions with real-time imaging if required 7 , 8 . The accuracy of this system, which increases the comfort of the patient and dentist, is achieved in accordance with ISO 5725. Trueness describes the contiguity of the measurement result with the reference data; precision describes the degree of similarity between the digital data obtained by scanning the same object several times 9 . Many studies evaluated the effect of intraoral scanner accuracy; it has been observed that many factors, such as the intraoral conditions like the humidity due to saliva and blood, patient movement, IOS technology, user experience, ambient lighting, scanning strategy, scanning distance, and the length of the edentulous region, are effective in digital impression accuracy 10 – 12 . In the study by Imburgia et al., partial- and full-arch digital impressions were obtained by using four different IOS, and the consequences of this study determined that each scanner’s accuracy in the partial-arch digital impressions was higher than in the full-arch ones 13 . In the current literature, there is some research showing that implant angulation does not have any effect on digital impression accuracy 14 , as well as some research showing implant angulation has a direct effect on digital impression accuracy 15 . The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of full- and segmental-arch digital impressions, implant angulation and different scan depths on the accuracy of digital implant impression. In the literature, no research has been found regarding the effect of changing the scan depth at the time of impression taking based on the accuracy of digital implant impression. The null hypothesis of this study was that full and segmental-arch impression strategies, implant angulation, and changing the scan depth parameter had no effect on the accuracy of digital implant impressions. Methods For testing the digital impression accuracy on different patient scenarios and scanning strategies, five different study groups (Fig. 1 ) were determined by placing implants on two edentulous mandibular and a partially edentulous maxilla epoxy model (Optimum, Ultra Clear Epoxy System, Malaysia). Implants (ø3,7mm x10mm Bilimplant, Proimtech, Istanbul, Turkey) were placed in the central incisor position with an 15º angle ( 11 - Group 1A ), in the first molar position with an 0º angle ( 16 - Group 1P ) and in the position of the first and second molars with an 0º angle ( 26, 27 - Group 2P ) in the partially edentulous maxillary model. In the first full edentulous mandibular model two straight implants were placed in the lateral incisors position and two 35º distal angled implants were placed in the first premolar position. ( 32, 42, 34, 44 - Group 4 ). On the second edentulous mandibular model, six straight implants were placed in the lateral incisors, first premolars and first molars positions ( 32, 42, 34, 44, 36, 46 - Group 6 ). To obtain the digital data, a cylindrical one-piece PEEK scanbody (Bilimplant, Proimtech, Istanbul, Turkey) was inserted by the same dentist with hand torque in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions (Fig. 2 ). Due to the surface luminescence powder was applied to the models before digital data was obtained. Each patient group was digitized by using a laboratory scanner and the obtained data was saved as a reference scan. Different scanning strategies were determined as follows; Segmental scans from canine teeth area for Group 1A, first premolar - third molar area for Group 1P, first premolar and second molar area for Group 2P; full-arch scanning was performed for Group 4 and Group 6 (Fig. 3 ). An intraoral scanner (i500, version 1.1.1, Medit, Seoul, Korea) was used to obtain test values and all digital data was performed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended scanning strategy. Scanning was started in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended scanning strategy, and it was performed by scanning the occlusal surface of the left posterior teeth, labio-lingual movement in the anterior teeth region, followed by scanning the occlusal surfaces of the right posterior teeth and finally scanning the lingual and labial surfaces. The process was completed in two stages; on the first stage the entire surface was scanned without a scanbody and on the second one the region was scanned by placing a scanbody. To investigate the effect of software parameters on the accuracy of digital impressions in the study groups, the scan depth was adjusted to be minimum (12mm) and maximum (21mm) by changing the software parameters of the intraoral scanner. Digital impression scans were converted into digital. stl data with the help of the system's software (Medit Link 2.2, Seoul, Korea) and saved as test data. Trueness was evaluated by comparing the. stl data with the reference data. Precision was evaluated by comparing the stl data which was obtained with the intraoral scanner within itself. The software program Medit Compare (Medit Compare 2.0, Seoul, Korea) was used to compare digital data. Measurements were made from 8 points on each scanbody from the midpoint of each surface, as shown in Fig. 4 . The comparison of the test data between groups was made through one-way ANOVA, comparisons between groups were made through Student`s T-test. The significance level was defined as p < 0.05. Results The maximum deviation was seen in Group 1A (37.00 ± 16.92) at the minimum scan depth and in Group 4 (51.70 ± 5.74) at the maximum scan depth. In terms of trueness tests, even the less deviation test values were obtained at minimum scanning depth (12 mm) in all test groups when comapred with maximum scanning depth (21 mm), this lower values are only significant in full-arch scans (p < .05). In full arch scanned test groups which include angled implants (Group 4) showed relatively higher deviations when comapred with Group 6 which the implants are placed straightly. However, no statistically differences were found (p > .05). In full-arch scanned group which the angled implants placed, showed higher deviation test values than segmental-arch ones in all groups at both scan depths. Even, among the partial scanned test groups higher deviation test values were obtained at Group 1A no sitatistical differences were found. The trueness values obtained for each group at different scan depths are presented in Table 1 , which summarizes the results of the Student’s t-test comparisons within groups. Table 1 Student`s T-test result for trueness test values (µm) within groups Scanning Strategy Test Groups Scanning Depth Maximum (21 mm) Minimum (12 mm) Partial Scanning Group 1 A 44.70 ± 11.02 A, b 37.00 ± 16.92 A, ab Group 1 P 40.80 ± 10.89 A, b 32.70 ± 4.64 A, ab Group 2 P 26.40 ± 5.48 A, a 21.50 ± 9.95 A, a Full Arch Scanning Group 4 51.70 ± 5.74 A, b 35.70 ± 4.57 B, b Group 6 40.70 ± 11.07 A, b 31.10 ± 4.48 B, ab * Significant differences between test groups are indicated in uppercase letters in rows and lowercase in columns (p < .05, “F” Value for Max. Scanning Depth: 10.032, “F” Value for Min. Scanning Depth: 4.172) In terms of precision test values, among the partial scanned test goups the least deviation test value was seen in Group 1P at both scanning depths. The highest deviation was seen in Group 4 ( 25.58 ± 9.38) at maximum scan depth and Group 1A (18.60 ± 9.92) at minimum scan depth. 0.05). Among the all full arch scanned test groups maximum scanning depth has negatively effected the deviation values. Table 2 shows the Student’s t-test results for precision values within groups. Table 2 Student`s T-test result for precision test values (µm) within groups Scanning Strategy Test Groups Scanning Depth Maximum (21 mm) Minimum (12 mm) Partial Scanning Group 1 A 12.73 ± 17.34 A, a 18.60 ± 9.92 A, a Group 1 P 10.69 ± 5.46 A, a 10.56 ± 5.52 A, b Group 2 P 13.64 ± 5.89 A, a 18.18 ± 9.88 B, a Full Arch Scanning Group 4 25.58 ± 9.38 A, b 16.87 ± 8.39 B, a Group 6 24.13 ± 8.12 A, b 18.13 ± 5.14 B, a * Significant differences between test groups are indicated in uppercase letters in rows and lowercase in columns (p < .05, “F” Value for Max. Scanning Depth : 20.923, “F” Value for Min. Scanning Depth : 7.894) Discussion Within the limitations of this in vitro study the hypothesis which was that full- and segmental-arch impression strategies, implant angulation and changing the scan depth parameter had no effect on the accuracy of digital implant impressions was partially rejected. The accuracy of the intraoral scanner is affected by many factors, the characteristics of the surface, length of the area to be scanned, the condition of the intraoral tissues (presence of blood or saliva), ambient light, the user's knowledge and experience; material, configuration and length of the scanbody used during implant impression. There are many studies in the literature investigating these parameters 10 – 12 , 16 . In a study by Papaspyridakos et al. 17 , conventional impressions with and without splint, abutment and implant level were taken on five straight implants placed on a completely edentulous mandibular model. Digital data of the same models were obtained using an intraoral scanner and the obtained data were compared with conventional impression methods. As a result of the study, there was no statistically significant difference between the impression methods 17 . In another study by Amin et al., digital impressions were obtained using two different intraoral scanners on five anterior straight, posterior 10º and 15º angled implants placed on the edentulous mandibular model. Conventional impressions were taken with the splinted open-tray impression technique on the same models. According to the results, digital data obtained with both intraoral scanners gave more accurate results when compared with the conventional impression method 18 . As a result of the systematic review, if there is a segmental arch and few implants digital impression methods can be used as an alternative to conventional impression methods. For the full arc impression process, it has been reported that digital impression methods do not show sufficient accurate results, and more studies are needed 19 . Another factor affecting the accuracy of the intraoral scanner is the angulation of the implant. There is no final conclusion about this issue in the literature 15 . The clinically acceptable deviation of the data obtained with the intraoral scanner was accepted as 100 µm and below 0.4 degrees 20 . As a result of our study, it was observed that the test results obtained from all study groups were within clinically acceptable limits (the highest deviation value was 51.70 ± 5.74 in Group 4). In studies, it has been shown that intraoral scanners show sufficient accuracy results in short arch digital impression 13 , 21 . In a study by Gavounelis et al. 22 , the effect on intraoral scanner accuracy was investigated by applying three different scanning strategies. As a result of the study, it has been shown that vertical and rotational movements during scanning may cause errors in the stitching process and such movements should be minimized during scanning 22 . The lowest accuracy result was seen in the group with the highest rotational movement. In the study, it was also observed that shadowing occurred due to the labial inclination of the anterior teeth from the occlusal view in all three scanning groups, resulting in a lower scanning accuracy. The application of labio-lingual movement in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions while scanning teeth in the anterior region causes image stitching errors as in full-arch digital impression scans. It is thought that the lower accuracy of anterior segmental scan results is due to image stitching errors in this region. However, the angled placement of the anterior implant, unlike the posterior implants, is thought to be one of the factors causing lower accuracy results in this region. There are also literature studies reporting that angulation has no effects on digital impression 14 . In our study, it is thought that the degree of angulation is especially effective on precision values. It is thought that there are difficulties in scanning the scanbody surfaces when the degree of angulation increases and this lack of digital data causes minor changes in matching. The angulation between the implants affects the position of the ISB and depending on the design of the scanbody it may affect the accuracy of the digital impression 23 . When evaluated the statistical test results, it was seen that the minimum and maximum scan depth showed mathematically different results in all groups. Only Group 4 and Group 6 showed significant results, although the minimum scan depth deviated lower in all groups. There is no study to compare in the current literature on changing the scan depth via software. Changing the scan depth causes camera to move away from the scanned area. As the distance between the camera of the intraoral scanner and the scanning area changes, it can be predicted that there may be deviations in the formation of the .stl file by creating the point cloud and connecting the subsequent points, these deviations may cause changes in the digital impression accuracy. When the camera gets closer to the scanning surface, distance of each determined point on the surface to the camera can be calculated more precisely trigonometrically. For this reason, it is thought that there is less deviation in the minimum scan depth in terms of digital impression accuracy in most of our test groups. When the results were evaluated in terms of trueness, although full arch digital impression scans showed high deviation values, the deviations were not significant (except for Group 4 and Group 6 maximum scan depth). Differences in deviation values were observed at the maximum and minimum scan depths in all groups. The reductions in these deviations were considered significant in the full-arch scan groups. With these results, it can be concluded that scan depth has a significant effect on digital impression accuracy. At the same time, the fact that the scanner head is far from the scanning area may cause a blurrier image 24 . In the study of Ciaocca et al. 25 , full-arch digital impression scans were performed on six implants, and it was observed that regardless of the scanning strategy, increasing the distance between the scan parts had a negative effect on the scanner accuracy 25 . It has been shown that deviations in accuracy values increase depending on the length of the scanning area 25 . In the current study, full-arch digital impression scans were performed on models with four and six implants. The longer inter-implant distance in models with four implants resulted in increased deviations in scanner accuracy. On the other hand, in the study of Papaspyridakos et al. 17 , full arc impression was obtained by conventional and digital methods. As a result of the study, it was observed that more than 15̊ implant angulations were effective on the impression accuracy in edentulous patients 1 7 . In our study, the data obtained with four implant scans showed similar deviations due to angulation. Group 2P is one of the groups in which the scanner accuracy differs significantly when the scan depth is changed. Like full-arch digital impression scans, the low number of reference point and absence of distal contact are thought to be the reasons for the variation in the results of this group. Our study was conducted in-vitro, so the results obtained may differ in intraoral scans. The absence of factors such as gingiva, moving tissue, saliva, blood, which affect scanner accuracy and use of powder before scanning can minimize the errors that may occur during scanning. Factors such as the presence of a movable floor of the mouth, the patient's movement, and excessive tissue movement due to the lack of keratinized gingiva prevent the scanner from determining a fixed reference point, and digital impression accuracy may be negatively affected because of errors that may occur during the merging of images. In the in vitro environment of the study, the reasons listed constitute general limitations. Conclusion Intraoral scanners can be used safely in many patient scenarios in the clinic (results from all groups in the study were within clinically acceptable limits). The presence of an angled implant does not have a direct effect on digital impression accuracy, however deviations in the accuracy of digital impressions may occur with the increase of the angle degree. It is promising that the minimum scan depth shows a lower deviation value in all groups, the scanner focuses more on the scanned area in cases where the scan depth is minimal and is not affected too much by the surrounding tissue movements and is used in cases where reference data are insufficient and moving tissues are found. While obtaining full-arch digital impression scans, the increase in the number of implants in the edentulous area and the short distance between the implants cause positive results in terms of the accuracy of the digital impression. Abbreviations Not applicable Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The study was based entirely on publicly available documents and did not involve human subjects, thus not requiring ethical approval. Consent for publication Not applicable Competing Interests The authors have no competing interests to declare. Funding This study was supported by the Scientific Research Projects Commission of Ondokuz Mayis University with the project number PYO.DIS.1904.21.009. Funding: This study was supported by the Scientific Research Projects Commission of Ondokuz Mayis University with the project number PYO.DIS.1904.21.009. Author Contribution Prof. Dr. Çağrı URAL ; Designed the study, discussed the results of the testsAssoc. Dr. Necati KALELİ ; Statistical analysis and interpreted dataParvin AHMADLI ; Wrote the manuscript, prepared figures and tables Acknowledgement The authors wish to thank Bilimplant Company for supporting test materials. Availability of data and materials Not applicable References Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):149. Albanchez-González MI, Brinkmann JC, Peláez-Rico J, et al. Accuracy of digital dental implants impression taking with intraoral scanners compared with conventional impression techniques: a systematic review of in vitro studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(4):2026. Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients’ preferences when comparing digital and conventional implant impression techniques: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(10):1113–8. Nedelcu RG, Persson AS. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(6):1461–71. Tafti AF, Hatami M, Razavi F, Ebadian B. Comparison of the accuracy of open-tray and snap-on impression techniques of implants with different angulations. Dent Res J. 2019;16(6):413–20. Kim KR, Seo KY, Kim S. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;122(6):543–9. Van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer DW, Ren Y. Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(8):e43312. Revilla-León M, Gohil A, Barmak AB, et al. Influence of ambient temperature changes on intraoral scanning accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128(4):632–8. ISO 5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 1994. Arcuri L, Lio F, Campana V, et al. Influence of implant scanbody wear on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: a randomized in vitro trial. Mater (Basel). 2022;15(3):927. Gómez-Polo M, Sallorenzo A, Ortega R et al. Influence of implant angulation and clinical implant scan body height on the accuracy of complete arch intraoral digital scans. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;S0022-3913(21)00651-X. Revilla-León M, Fogarty R, Barrington JJ, et al. Influence of scan body design and digital implant analogs on implant replica position in additively manufactured casts. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(2):202–10. Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, et al. Analysis of accuracy in complete-arch implant digital impressions: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30(6):556–63. Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzade M. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: effect of implant angulation and connection type. Int J Dent. 2018;2018:3761750. Arcuri L, Pozzi A, Lio F, et al. Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: a randomized in vitro trial. J Prosthodont Res. 2020;64(2):128–36. Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111(3):186–94. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Gallucci GO, et al. Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;29(4):836–45. Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, et al. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(11):1360–7. Flügge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, Nelson K. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(S16):374–92. Revilla-León M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M, et al. Intraoral digital scans-Part 1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(3):372–8. Di Fiore A, Graiff L, Savio G, et al. Investigation of the accuracy of four intraoral scanners in mandibular full-arch digital implant impression: a comparative in vitro study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(8):4719. Gavounelis NA, Gogola CC, Halazonetis DJ. The effect of scanning strategy on intraoral scanner’s accuracy. Dent J (Basel). 2022;10(7):123. Revilla-León M, Fogarty R, Barrington JJ, et al. Influence of scan body design and digital implant analogs on implant replica position in additively manufactured casts. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(2):202–10. Revilla-León M, Gohil A, Barmak AB, et al. Influence of ambient temperature changes on intraoral scanning accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128(4):632–8. Ciocca L, Meneghello R, Monaco C, et al. In vitro assessment of the accuracy of digital impressions prepared using a single system for full-arch restorations on implants. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2018;13(7):1097–108. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 20 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 15 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 13 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Oct, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 26 Sep, 2025 Editor invited by journal 14 Jul, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 09 Jul, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 09 Jul, 2025 First submitted to journal 03 Jul, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {\"props\":{\"pageProps\":{\"initialData\":{\"identity\":\"rs-7040884\",\"acceptedTermsAndConditions\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"archivedVersions\":[],\"articleType\":\"Research Article\",\"associatedPublications\":[],\"authors\":[{\"id\":525829265,\"identity\":\"48802d06-240d-4172-9890-a16de0b60885\",\"order_by\":0,\"name\":\"Çağrı Ural\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Giresun University\",\"correspondingAuthor\":true,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Çağrı\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Ural\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":525829266,\"identity\":\"74eba78a-d914-4278-aad7-22f364f83d42\",\"order_by\":1,\"name\":\"Necati KALELİ\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Ondokuz Mayıs University\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Necati\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"KALELİ\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":525829267,\"identity\":\"c7417576-1dc7-42ed-9b8a-76c7eba114ae\",\"order_by\":2,\"name\":\"Parvin AHMADLI\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Private Practice\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Parvin\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"AHMADLI\",\"suffix\":\"\"}],\"badges\":[],\"createdAt\":\"2025-07-03 18:53:06\",\"currentVersionCode\":1,\"declarations\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7040884/v1\",\"doiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7040884/v1\",\"draftVersion\":[],\"editorialEvents\":[],\"editorialNote\":\"\",\"failedWorkflow\":false,\"files\":[{\"id\":93244182,\"identity\":\"94d72b90-9c44-402d-80f2-b750bcb07774\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 15:01:33\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":1360048,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Fig.1.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/e41513cab4ac335fef932787.jpeg\"},{\"id\":93240353,\"identity\":\"4b1192dd-8b11-4ec6-a991-97474003d0c4\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:45:33\",\"extension\":\"docx\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":39615,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Maintext.docx\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/b8476c3f4441bd86fac23c48.docx\"},{\"id\":93241923,\"identity\":\"88601b77-09b6-4854-bbe3-ce39bfb5334c\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:53:33\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":2,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":1860912,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Fig.2.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/9522f56f68c469e346090c61.jpeg\"},{\"id\":93240355,\"identity\":\"7d20f9af-2de3-4241-90a0-072a740c1052\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:45:33\",\"extension\":\"docx\",\"order_by\":3,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":15732,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Table2.docx\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/8fd41cf815c9a2803c91a1ab.docx\"},{\"id\":93239112,\"identity\":\"8b501baf-d85b-405f-a32a-c1c4122c1d92\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:37:33\",\"extension\":\"docx\",\"order_by\":4,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":15756,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Table1.docx\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/a213c4a10bdf6c3e28c5fc07.docx\"},{\"id\":93239113,\"identity\":\"0c0dfe92-73aa-4869-bd7c-051d6f501e28\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:37:33\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":5,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":1477697,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Fig.3.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/3176f11e284787ccf5d1b34e.jpeg\"},{\"id\":93239116,\"identity\":\"c253aa48-91ce-4ac1-a741-ee7dd2e85ccf\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:37:33\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":6,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":1841284,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Fig.4.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/2a9d636630294484da9f3b99.jpeg\"},{\"id\":93240359,\"identity\":\"f606b773-562a-4ca0-b36b-653803d98e46\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:45:33\",\"extension\":\"json\",\"order_by\":7,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":5430,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"34e93e710b3c47e28f53d6536c742b2b.json\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/4a9009c34c67b6c3cfa7b0e9.json\"},{\"id\":93240357,\"identity\":\"cc97c713-e215-4033-94d4-7d8bda9465e4\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:45:33\",\"extension\":\"xml\",\"order_by\":8,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":76221,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"34e93e710b3c47e28f53d6536c742b2b1enriched.xml\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/610e2b308fd37eb7cfbd3eaa.xml\"},{\"id\":93239118,\"identity\":\"225bc5dc-d02c-4369-b8e8-c93de5b4b425\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:37:33\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":9,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":1360048,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Fig.1.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/b311b23b28727275baa28ed2.jpeg\"},{\"id\":93240362,\"identity\":\"af9fb118-4cd1-4c84-9f32-b6c4bfa44739\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:45:33\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":10,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":1860912,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Fig.2.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/861ef691ac11675a4b3cfaef.jpeg\"},{\"id\":93241928,\"identity\":\"660079b6-1284-47ee-8f82-3726aab1b7f6\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:53:33\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":11,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":1477697,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Fig.3.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/b32aadf4fa31045dd0b112e6.jpeg\"},{\"id\":93239122,\"identity\":\"6f2fe2e3-007a-4ce9-9cd4-e294f5ac3fe9\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:37:33\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":12,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":1841284,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Fig.4.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/fbf819e362d53efa21cb97c4.jpeg\"},{\"id\":93239121,\"identity\":\"b9bff5f1-f655-4676-add6-44bd0399ed4b\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:37:33\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":13,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":145119,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"OnlineFig.1.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/992e0f7c70e7de70ce9c1fee.png\"},{\"id\":93239115,\"identity\":\"8be8f363-d2de-4f57-afc0-736e5d3f6386\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:37:33\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":14,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":62884,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"OnlineFig.2.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/baee765cee3a66cc6bd958b7.png\"},{\"id\":93240361,\"identity\":\"a3412ebc-382a-4e6a-9b75-46385be568bd\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:45:33\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":15,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":142798,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"OnlineFig.3.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/da055f3454dfdbbff75ab662.png\"},{\"id\":93239117,\"identity\":\"3b20d297-930e-4f46-b96e-4a9a9276ce8b\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:37:33\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":16,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":60878,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"OnlineFig.4.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/63549727451b7c6cad25efeb.png\"},{\"id\":93239125,\"identity\":\"591e606f-51d5-4d95-9d94-55c00fed6dfa\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:37:33\",\"extension\":\"xml\",\"order_by\":17,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":76489,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"34e93e710b3c47e28f53d6536c742b2b1structuring.xml\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/2aec4501e9eb891ae0f4087a.xml\"},{\"id\":93240364,\"identity\":\"4f06eafc-d681-47f3-90ab-744899ecc3c4\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:45:33\",\"extension\":\"html\",\"order_by\":18,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":82724,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"earlyproof.html\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/2673db0f4696cd91e040104f.html\"},{\"id\":93239107,\"identity\":\"4e860e57-e891-4917-9675-e9a123889efb\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:37:33\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"Figure 1\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":1360048,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eStudy groups.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Fig.1.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/9800c0fd5e9de274db38b855.jpeg\"},{\"id\":93239104,\"identity\":\"3f07d191-6dfb-423c-8134-ab5ae495120d\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:37:33\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":2,\"title\":\"Figure 2\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":1860912,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003ePEEK scanbody used in the study.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Fig.2.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/b746a3ca97bebb2cb09bf54b.jpeg\"},{\"id\":93239109,\"identity\":\"e3653340-eb1a-4bcd-914a-e9d4bff953d6\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 14:37:33\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":3,\"title\":\"Figure 3\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":1477697,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eSegmental and full-arch scan views.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Fig.3.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/8bd5aa050bb26f665e3e76d1.jpeg\"},{\"id\":93244183,\"identity\":\"8c422607-5657-4916-85d6-447393ab04e9\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 15:01:33\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":4,\"title\":\"Figure 4\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":1841284,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eMeasurements made around the scanbodies.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Fig.4.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/1c50088bf6585fe8d81baedd.jpeg\"},{\"id\":93244184,\"identity\":\"4e67927f-4e4b-483a-9c4f-1dcad4993ebd\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-10-10 15:01:41\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"manuscript-pdf\",\"size\":7912204,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"manuscript.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7040884/v1/91ae31b5-15d0-412c-a369-eeafbf3908a4.pdf\"}],\"financialInterests\":\"No competing interests reported.\",\"formattedTitle\":\"Evaluation of The Effect of Different Software Parameters and Scanning Methodologies on Digital Impression Accuracy\",\"fulltext\":[{\"header\":\"Background\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eIn recent years, implant-supported restorations are considered as preferred treatments in the case of complete and partial edentulism \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e,\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Unlike natural teeth, implants can minimally tolerate errors that may occur in the final restoration as implants are ankylosed with bones \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e,\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Today, both conventional and digital impression methods are preferred to transfer the intraoral position of the implant to the laboratory for fabrication of implant-supported restorations \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR3\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e,\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR4\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e4\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Difficulties may occur during the use of conventional impression methods, especially in patients with gag reflex and geriatric patients. Many disadvantages, such as the use of light body impression materials, the need for an additional appointment, custom tray and impression materials during the use of the open tray impression technique, the disinfection process of the obtained impressions and the risk of cross contamination can occur during the use of conventional impression methods \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR5\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/span\\u003e,\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR6\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e6\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. In the digital impression system, these disadvantages are eliminated, and a dentist can perform quick and easy interventions with real-time imaging if required \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR7\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e7\\u003c/span\\u003e,\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR8\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e8\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. The accuracy of this system, which increases the comfort of the patient and dentist, is achieved in accordance with ISO 5725. Trueness describes the contiguity of the measurement result with the reference data; precision describes the degree of similarity between the digital data obtained by scanning the same object several times \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR9\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e9\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Many studies evaluated the effect of intraoral scanner accuracy; it has been observed that many factors, such as the intraoral conditions like the humidity due to saliva and blood, patient movement, IOS technology, user experience, ambient lighting, scanning strategy, scanning distance, and the length of the edentulous region, are effective in digital impression accuracy \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\\\"CR11\\\" citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e10\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u0026ndash;\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR12\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e12\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eIn the study by Imburgia et al., partial- and full-arch digital impressions were obtained by using four different IOS, and the consequences of this study determined that each scanner\\u0026rsquo;s accuracy in the partial-arch digital impressions was higher than in the full-arch ones \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR13\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e13\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. In the current literature, there is some research showing that implant angulation does not have any effect on digital impression accuracy \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR14\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e14\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e, as well as some research showing implant angulation has a direct effect on digital impression accuracy \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR15\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e15\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of full- and segmental-arch digital impressions, implant angulation and different scan depths on the accuracy of digital implant impression. In the literature, no research has been found regarding the effect of changing the scan depth at the time of impression taking based on the accuracy of digital implant impression. The null hypothesis of this study was that full and segmental-arch impression strategies, implant angulation, and changing the scan depth parameter had no effect on the accuracy of digital implant impressions.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Methods\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eFor testing the digital impression accuracy on different patient scenarios and scanning strategies, five different study groups (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e) were determined by placing implants on two edentulous mandibular and a partially edentulous maxilla epoxy model (Optimum, Ultra Clear Epoxy System, Malaysia). Implants (\\u0026oslash;3,7mm x10mm Bilimplant, Proimtech, Istanbul, Turkey) were placed in the central incisor position with an 15\\u0026ordm; angle (\\u003cb\\u003e11 - Group 1A\\u003c/b\\u003e), in the first molar position with an 0\\u0026ordm; angle ( \\u003cb\\u003e16 - Group 1P\\u003c/b\\u003e) and in the position of the first and second molars with an 0\\u0026ordm; angle (\\u003cb\\u003e26, 27 - Group 2P\\u003c/b\\u003e) in the partially edentulous maxillary model. In the first full edentulous mandibular model two straight implants were placed in the lateral incisors position and two 35\\u0026ordm; distal angled implants were placed in the first premolar position. (\\u003cb\\u003e32, 42, 34, 44 - Group 4\\u003c/b\\u003e). On the second edentulous mandibular model, six straight implants were placed in the lateral incisors, first premolars and first molars positions (\\u003cb\\u003e32, 42, 34, 44, 36, 46 - Group 6\\u003c/b\\u003e). To obtain the digital data, a cylindrical one-piece PEEK scanbody (Bilimplant, Proimtech, Istanbul, Turkey) was inserted by the same dentist with hand torque in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e). Due to the surface luminescence powder was applied to the models before digital data was obtained. Each patient group was digitized by using a laboratory scanner and the obtained data was saved as a reference scan. Different scanning strategies were determined as follows; Segmental scans from canine teeth area for Group 1A, first premolar - third molar area for Group 1P, first premolar and second molar area for Group 2P; full-arch scanning was performed for Group 4 and Group 6 (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig3\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e). An intraoral scanner (i500, version 1.1.1, Medit, Seoul, Korea) was used to obtain test values and all digital data was performed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended scanning strategy. Scanning was started in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended scanning strategy, and it was performed by scanning the occlusal surface of the left posterior teeth, labio-lingual movement in the anterior teeth region, followed by scanning the occlusal surfaces of the right posterior teeth and finally scanning the lingual and labial surfaces. The process was completed in two stages; on the first stage the entire surface was scanned without a scanbody and on the second one the region was scanned by placing a scanbody. To investigate the effect of software parameters on the accuracy of digital impressions in the study groups, the scan depth was adjusted to be minimum (12mm) and maximum (21mm) by changing the software parameters of the intraoral scanner. Digital impression scans were converted into digital. stl data with the help of the system's software (Medit Link 2.2, Seoul, Korea) and saved as test data. Trueness was evaluated by comparing the. stl data with the reference data. Precision was evaluated by comparing the stl data which was obtained with the intraoral scanner within itself. The software program Medit Compare (Medit Compare 2.0, Seoul, Korea) was used to compare digital data. Measurements were made from 8 points on each scanbody from the midpoint of each surface, as shown in Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig4\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e4\\u003c/span\\u003e. The comparison of the test data between groups was made through one-way ANOVA, comparisons between groups were made through Student`s T-test. The significance level was defined as p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.05.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Results\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThe maximum deviation was seen in Group 1A (37.00\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;16.92) at the minimum scan depth and in Group 4 (51.70\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;5.74) at the maximum scan depth. In terms of trueness tests, even the less deviation test values were obtained at minimum scanning depth (12 mm) in all test groups when comapred with maximum scanning depth (21 mm), this lower values are only significant in full-arch scans (p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.05). In full arch scanned test groups which include angled implants (Group 4) showed relatively higher deviations when comapred with Group 6 which the implants are placed straightly. However, no statistically differences were found (p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;.05). In full-arch scanned group which the angled implants placed, showed higher deviation test values than segmental-arch ones in all groups at both scan depths. Even, among the partial scanned test groups higher deviation test values were obtained at Group 1A no sitatistical differences were found. The trueness values obtained for each group at different scan depths are presented in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e, which summarizes the results of the Student\\u0026rsquo;s t-test comparisons within groups.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab1\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 1\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eStudent`s T-test result for trueness test values (\\u0026micro;m) within groups\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/caption\\u003e\\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003ctbody\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"1\\\" rowspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eScanning Strategy\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" morerows=\\\"1\\\" rowspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eTest Groups\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"2\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eScanning Depth\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eMaximum (21 mm)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eMinimum (12 mm)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003ePartial Scanning\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eGroup 1 A\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e44.70\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;11.02 \\u003csup\\u003eA, b\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e37.00\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;16.92\\u003csup\\u003eA, ab\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eGroup 1 P\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e40.80\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;10.89\\u003csup\\u003eA, b\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e32.70\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;4.64\\u003csup\\u003eA, ab\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eGroup 2 P\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e26.40\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;5.48\\u003csup\\u003eA, a\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e21.50\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;9.95\\u003csup\\u003eA, a\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"1\\\" rowspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eFull Arch Scanning\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eGroup 4\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e51.70\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;5.74\\u003csup\\u003eA, b\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e35.70\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;4.57\\u003csup\\u003eB, b\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eGroup 6\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e40.70\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;11.07\\u003csup\\u003eA, b\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e31.10\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;4.48\\u003csup\\u003eB, ab\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003c/tbody\\u003e\\u003c/colgroup\\u003e\\u003ctfoot\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd colspan=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e*\\u003c/b\\u003e Significant differences between test groups are indicated in uppercase letters in rows and lowercase in columns (p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.05, \\u0026ldquo;F\\u0026rdquo; Value for Max. Scanning Depth: 10.032, \\u0026ldquo;F\\u0026rdquo; Value for Min. Scanning Depth: 4.172)\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003c/tfoot\\u003e\\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eIn terms of precision test values, among the partial scanned test goups the least deviation test value was seen in Group 1P at both scanning depths. The highest deviation was seen in Group 4 ( 25.58\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;9.38) at maximum scan depth and Group 1A (18.60\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;9.92) at minimum scan depth. 0.05). Among the all full arch scanned test groups maximum scanning depth has negatively effected the deviation values. Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e shows the Student\\u0026rsquo;s t-test results for precision values within groups.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab2\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 2\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eStudent`s T-test result for precision test values (\\u0026micro;m) within groups\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/caption\\u003e\\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003ctbody\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"1\\\" rowspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eScanning Strategy\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" morerows=\\\"1\\\" rowspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eTest Groups\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"2\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eScanning Depth\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eMaximum (21 mm)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eMinimum (12 mm)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003ePartial Scanning\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eGroup 1 A\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e12.73\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;17.34 \\u003csup\\u003eA, a\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e18.60\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;9.92 \\u003csup\\u003eA, a\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eGroup 1 P\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e10.69\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;5.46 \\u003csup\\u003eA, a\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e10.56\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;5.52 \\u003csup\\u003eA, b\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eGroup 2 P\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e13.64\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;5.89 \\u003csup\\u003eA, a\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e18.18\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;9.88 \\u003csup\\u003eB, a\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"1\\\" rowspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eFull Arch Scanning\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eGroup 4\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e25.58\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;9.38 \\u003csup\\u003eA, b\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e16.87\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;8.39 \\u003csup\\u003eB, a\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eGroup 6\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e24.13\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;8.12 \\u003csup\\u003eA, b\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e18.13\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;5.14 \\u003csup\\u003eB, a\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003c/tbody\\u003e\\u003c/colgroup\\u003e\\u003ctfoot\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd colspan=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e*\\u003c/b\\u003e Significant differences between test groups are indicated in uppercase letters in rows and lowercase in columns (p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.05, \\u0026ldquo;F\\u0026rdquo; Value for Max. Scanning Depth : 20.923, \\u0026ldquo;F\\u0026rdquo; Value for Min. Scanning Depth : 7.894)\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003c/tfoot\\u003e\\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Discussion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eWithin the limitations of this in vitro study the hypothesis which was that full- and segmental-arch impression strategies, implant angulation and changing the scan depth parameter had no effect on the accuracy of digital implant impressions was partially rejected.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe accuracy of the intraoral scanner is affected by many factors, the characteristics of the surface, length of the area to be scanned, the condition of the intraoral tissues (presence of blood or saliva), ambient light, the user's knowledge and experience; material, configuration and length of the scanbody used during implant impression. There are many studies in the literature investigating these parameters \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\\\"CR11\\\" citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e10\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u0026ndash;\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR12\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e12\\u003c/span\\u003e,\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR16\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e16\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. In a study by Papaspyridakos et al. \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR17\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e17\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e, conventional impressions with and without splint, abutment and implant level were taken on five straight implants placed on a completely edentulous mandibular model. Digital data of the same models were obtained using an intraoral scanner and the obtained data were compared with conventional impression methods. As a result of the study, there was no statistically significant difference between the impression methods \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR17\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e17\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eIn another study by Amin et al., digital impressions were obtained using two different intraoral scanners on five anterior straight, posterior 10\\u0026ordm; and 15\\u0026ordm; angled implants placed on the edentulous mandibular model. Conventional impressions were taken with the splinted open-tray impression technique on the same models. According to the results, digital data obtained with both intraoral scanners gave more accurate results when compared with the conventional impression method \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR18\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e18\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. As a result of the systematic review, if there is a segmental arch and few implants digital impression methods can be used as an alternative to conventional impression methods. For the full arc impression process, it has been reported that digital impression methods do not show sufficient accurate results, and more studies are needed \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR19\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e19\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Another factor affecting the accuracy of the intraoral scanner is the angulation of the implant. There is no final conclusion about this issue in the literature \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR15\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e15\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. The clinically acceptable deviation of the data obtained with the intraoral scanner was accepted as 100 \\u0026micro;m and below 0.4 degrees \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR20\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e20\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. As a result of our study, it was observed that the test results obtained from all study groups were within clinically acceptable limits (the highest deviation value was 51.70\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026plusmn;\\u0026thinsp;5.74 in Group 4).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eIn studies, it has been shown that intraoral scanners show sufficient accuracy results in short arch digital impression \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR13\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e13\\u003c/span\\u003e,\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR21\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e21\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. In a study by Gavounelis et al. \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e22\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e, the effect on intraoral scanner accuracy was investigated by applying three different scanning strategies. As a result of the study, it has been shown that vertical and rotational movements during scanning may cause errors in the stitching process and such movements should be minimized during scanning \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e22\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. The lowest accuracy result was seen in the group with the highest rotational movement. In the study, it was also observed that shadowing occurred due to the labial inclination of the anterior teeth from the occlusal view in all three scanning groups, resulting in a lower scanning accuracy. The application of labio-lingual movement in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions while scanning teeth in the anterior region causes image stitching errors as in full-arch digital impression scans. It is thought that the lower accuracy of anterior segmental scan results is due to image stitching errors in this region. However, the angled placement of the anterior implant, unlike the posterior implants, is thought to be one of the factors causing lower accuracy results in this region. There are also literature studies reporting that angulation has no effects on digital impression \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR14\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e14\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. In our study, it is thought that the degree of angulation is especially effective on precision values. It is thought that there are difficulties in scanning the scanbody surfaces when the degree of angulation increases and this lack of digital data causes minor changes in matching.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe angulation between the implants affects the position of the ISB and depending on the design of the scanbody it may affect the accuracy of the digital impression \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR23\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e23\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. When evaluated the statistical test results, it was seen that the minimum and maximum scan depth showed mathematically different results in all groups. Only Group 4 and Group 6 showed significant results, although the minimum scan depth deviated lower in all groups. There is no study to compare in the current literature on changing the scan depth via software. Changing the scan depth causes camera to move away from the scanned area. As the distance between the camera of the intraoral scanner and the scanning area changes, it can be predicted that there may be deviations in the formation of the .stl file by creating the point cloud and connecting the subsequent points, these deviations may cause changes in the digital impression accuracy. When the camera gets closer to the scanning surface, distance of each determined point on the surface to the camera can be calculated more precisely trigonometrically. For this reason, it is thought that there is less deviation in the minimum scan depth in terms of digital impression accuracy in most of our test groups. When the results were evaluated in terms of trueness, although full arch digital impression scans showed high deviation values, the deviations were not significant (except for Group 4 and Group 6 maximum scan depth). Differences in deviation values were observed at the maximum and minimum scan depths in all groups. The reductions in these deviations were considered significant in the full-arch scan groups. With these results, it can be concluded that scan depth has a significant effect on digital impression accuracy. At the same time, the fact that the scanner head is far from the scanning area may cause a blurrier image \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR24\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e24\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. In the study of Ciaocca et al. \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR25\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e25\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e, full-arch digital impression scans were performed on six implants, and it was observed that regardless of the scanning strategy, increasing the distance between the scan parts had a negative effect on the scanner accuracy \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR25\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e25\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. It has been shown that deviations in accuracy values increase depending on the length of the scanning area \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR25\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e25\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eIn the current study, full-arch digital impression scans were performed on models with four and six implants. The longer inter-implant distance in models with four implants resulted in increased deviations in scanner accuracy. On the other hand, in the study of Papaspyridakos et al. \\u003csup\\u003e\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR17\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e17\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e, full arc impression was obtained by conventional and digital methods. As a result of the study, it was observed that more than 15̊ implant angulations were effective on the impression accuracy in edentulous patients \\u003csup\\u003e1\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR7\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e7\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/sup\\u003e. In our study, the data obtained with four implant scans showed similar deviations due to angulation. Group 2P is one of the groups in which the scanner accuracy differs significantly when the scan depth is changed. Like full-arch digital impression scans, the low number of reference point and absence of distal contact are thought to be the reasons for the variation in the results of this group.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eOur study was conducted in-vitro, so the results obtained may differ in intraoral scans. The absence of factors such as gingiva, moving tissue, saliva, blood, which affect scanner accuracy and use of powder before scanning can minimize the errors that may occur during scanning. Factors such as the presence of a movable floor of the mouth, the patient's movement, and excessive tissue movement due to the lack of keratinized gingiva prevent the scanner from determining a fixed reference point, and digital impression accuracy may be negatively affected because of errors that may occur during the merging of images. In the in vitro environment of the study, the reasons listed constitute general limitations.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Conclusion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eIntraoral scanners can be used safely in many patient scenarios in the clinic (results from all groups in the study were within clinically acceptable limits). The presence of an angled implant does not have a direct effect on digital impression accuracy, however deviations in the accuracy of digital impressions may occur with the increase of the angle degree. It is promising that the minimum scan depth shows a lower deviation value in all groups, the scanner focuses more on the scanned area in cases where the scan depth is minimal and is not affected too much by the surrounding tissue movements and is used in cases where reference data are insufficient and moving tissues are found. While obtaining full-arch digital impression scans, the increase in the number of implants in the edentulous area and the short distance between the implants cause positive results in terms of the accuracy of the digital impression.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Abbreviations\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eNot applicable\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Declarations\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe study was based entirely on publicly available documents and did not involve human subjects, thus not requiring ethical approval.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eConsent for publication\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eNot applicable\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eCompeting Interests\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe authors have no competing interests to declare.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eFunding\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThis study was supported by the Scientific Research Projects Commission of Ondokuz Mayis University with the project number PYO.DIS.1904.21.009.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eFunding:\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThis study was supported by the Scientific Research Projects Commission of Ondokuz Mayis University with the project number PYO.DIS.1904.21.009.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eAuthor Contribution\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eProf. Dr. \\u0026Ccedil;ağrı URAL ; Designed the study, discussed the results of the testsAssoc. Dr. Necati KALELİ ; Statistical analysis and interpreted dataParvin AHMADLI ; Wrote the manuscript, prepared figures and tables\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eAcknowledgement\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe authors wish to thank Bilimplant Company for supporting test materials.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eAvailability of data and materials\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eNot applicable\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"References\",\"content\":\"\\u003col\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):149.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAlbanchez-Gonz\\u0026aacute;lez MI, Brinkmann JC, Pel\\u0026aacute;ez-Rico J, et al. Accuracy of digital dental implants impression taking with intraoral scanners compared with conventional impression techniques: a systematic review of in vitro studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(4):2026.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eWismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients\\u0026rsquo; preferences when comparing digital and conventional implant impression techniques: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(10):1113\\u0026ndash;8.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNedelcu RG, Persson AS. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(6):1461\\u0026ndash;71.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eTafti AF, Hatami M, Razavi F, Ebadian B. Comparison of the accuracy of open-tray and snap-on impression techniques of implants with different angulations. Dent Res J. 2019;16(6):413\\u0026ndash;20.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKim KR, Seo KY, Kim S. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;122(6):543\\u0026ndash;9.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eVan der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer DW, Ren Y. Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(8):e43312.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRevilla-Le\\u0026oacute;n M, Gohil A, Barmak AB, et al. Influence of ambient temperature changes on intraoral scanning accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128(4):632\\u0026ndash;8.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eISO 5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 1994.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eArcuri L, Lio F, Campana V, et al. Influence of implant scanbody wear on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: a randomized in vitro trial. Mater (Basel). 2022;15(3):927.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eG\\u0026oacute;mez-Polo M, Sallorenzo A, Ortega R et al. Influence of implant angulation and clinical implant scan body height on the accuracy of complete arch intraoral digital scans. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;S0022-3913(21)00651-X.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRevilla-Le\\u0026oacute;n M, Fogarty R, Barrington JJ, et al. Influence of scan body design and digital implant analogs on implant replica position in additively manufactured casts. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(2):202\\u0026ndash;10.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eImburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, et al. Analysis of accuracy in complete-arch implant digital impressions: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30(6):556\\u0026ndash;63.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAlikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzade M. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: effect of implant angulation and connection type. Int J Dent. 2018;2018:3761750.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eArcuri L, Pozzi A, Lio F, et al. Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: a randomized in vitro trial. J Prosthodont Res. 2020;64(2):128\\u0026ndash;36.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAndriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111(3):186\\u0026ndash;94.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ePapaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Gallucci GO, et al. Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;29(4):836\\u0026ndash;45.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAmin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, et al. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(11):1360\\u0026ndash;7.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFl\\u0026uuml;gge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, Nelson K. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(S16):374\\u0026ndash;92.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRevilla-Le\\u0026oacute;n M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M, et al. Intraoral digital scans-Part 1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(3):372\\u0026ndash;8.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eDi Fiore A, Graiff L, Savio G, et al. Investigation of the accuracy of four intraoral scanners in mandibular full-arch digital implant impression: a comparative in vitro study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(8):4719.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGavounelis NA, Gogola CC, Halazonetis DJ. The effect of scanning strategy on intraoral scanner\\u0026rsquo;s accuracy. Dent J (Basel). 2022;10(7):123.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRevilla-Le\\u0026oacute;n M, Fogarty R, Barrington JJ, et al. Influence of scan body design and digital implant analogs on implant replica position in additively manufactured casts. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(2):202\\u0026ndash;10.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRevilla-Le\\u0026oacute;n M, Gohil A, Barmak AB, et al. Influence of ambient temperature changes on intraoral scanning accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128(4):632\\u0026ndash;8.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCiocca L, Meneghello R, Monaco C, et al. In vitro assessment of the accuracy of digital impressions prepared using a single system for full-arch restorations on implants. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2018;13(7):1097\\u0026ndash;108.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003c/ol\\u003e\"}],\"fulltextSource\":\"\",\"fullText\":\"\",\"funders\":[],\"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow\":false,\"hasManuscriptDocX\":true,\"hasOptedInToPreprint\":true,\"hasPassedJournalQc\":\"\",\"hasAnyPriority\":false,\"hideJournal\":false,\"highlight\":\"\",\"institution\":\"\",\"isAcceptedByJournal\":false,\"isAuthorSuppliedPdf\":false,\"isDeskRejected\":\"\",\"isHiddenFromSearch\":false,\"isInQc\":false,\"isInWorkflow\":false,\"isPdf\":false,\"isPdfUpToDate\":true,\"isWithdrawnOrRetracted\":false,\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"bmc-oral-health\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"externalIdentity\":\"ohea\",\"sideBox\":\"Learn more about [BMC Oral Health](http://bmcoralhealth.biomedcentral.com/)\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"https://www.editorialmanager.com/ohea/default.aspx\",\"title\":\"BMC Oral Health\",\"twitterHandle\":\"BMC_series\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"em\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"BMC Series\",\"inReviewEnabled\":true,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true},\"keywords\":\"Dental Implants, Dental Technology, Software\",\"lastPublishedDoi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7040884/v1\",\"lastPublishedDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7040884/v1\",\"license\":{\"name\":\"CC BY 4.0\",\"url\":\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\"},\"manuscriptAbstract\":\"\\u003ch2\\u003eBackground\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of digital impressions depending on software parameters and different patient scenarios.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eMethods\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eFive study groups were created by placing implants in two edentulous mandibular and a partially edentulous maxillary epoxy model. In the maxillary model, implants were placed at the central incisor with a 15\\u0026ordm; angle (Group 1A), first molar with 0\\u0026ordm; (Group 1P), and first-second molars with 0\\u0026ordm; (Group 2P). In the first edentulous mandibular model, two straight implants were placed in lateral incisor sites and two 30\\u0026ordm; angled implants in premolar sites (Group 4). The second mandibular model had six straight implants (Group 6). Models were digitized with a laboratory scanner to obtain reference data. Segmental scans were performed for Groups 1A, 1P, and 2P, while full-arch scans were performed for Groups 4 and 6. Scan depth was adjusted to minimum (12 mm) and maximum (21 mm) settings using intraoral scanner software. The STL data were generated and compared with reference scans to evaluate trueness; precision was assessed by intra-group comparison. One-way ANOVA and Student\\u0026rsquo;s t-test were used (p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.05).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eResults\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eMinimum scan depth produced less deviation than maximum scan depth in all groups, significantly in full-arch scans (p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.05). Angled implants showed higher deviations. Full-arch scans showed more deviation than segmental scans except in Group 1A. Group 2P had the least deviation for trueness, while Group 4 had the most. For precision, Group 1P had the least and Group 4 the highest deviation.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eConclusions\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eIntraoral scanners can be reliably used in various clinical scenarios. Although angled implants did not directly reduce accuracy, higher angulation increased deviations. Minimum scan depth improved accuracy by reducing interference from surrounding tissues. Full-arch scans benefited from more implants and shorter distances between them.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"manuscriptTitle\":\"Evaluation of The Effect of Different Software Parameters and Scanning Methodologies on Digital Impression Accuracy\",\"msid\":\"\",\"msnumber\":\"\",\"nonDraftVersions\":[{\"code\":1,\"date\":\"2025-10-10 14:37:28\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7040884/v1\",\"editorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"communityComments\",\"content\":0},{\"type\":\"decision\",\"content\":\"Revision requested\",\"date\":\"2026-03-20T11:01:39+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-10-15T08:51:20+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-10-13T15:52:10+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"334265117670115251620824983080288510602\",\"date\":\"2025-10-09T12:33:48+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"177552214653830404414034632372070881622\",\"date\":\"2025-10-07T08:30:11+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"4588455960929497021421396843132846031\",\"date\":\"2025-10-07T07:58:00+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewersInvited\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-09-26T07:43:24+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvited\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-07-14T10:39:53+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorAssigned\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-07-10T02:55:52+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"checksComplete\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-07-10T02:54:31+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"submitted\",\"content\":\"BMC Oral Health\",\"date\":\"2025-07-03T18:39:42+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"}],\"status\":\"published\",\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"bmc-oral-health\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"externalIdentity\":\"ohea\",\"sideBox\":\"Learn more about [BMC Oral Health](http://bmcoralhealth.biomedcentral.com/)\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"https://www.editorialmanager.com/ohea/default.aspx\",\"title\":\"BMC Oral Health\",\"twitterHandle\":\"BMC_series\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"em\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"BMC Series\",\"inReviewEnabled\":true,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true}}],\"origin\":\"\",\"ownerIdentity\":\"19cda4f4-3e31-474e-ad01-fa0a844493d8\",\"owner\":[],\"postedDate\":\"October 10th, 2025\",\"published\":true,\"recentEditorialEvents\":[],\"rejectedJournal\":[],\"revision\":\"\",\"amendment\":\"\",\"status\":\"under-review\",\"subjectAreas\":[],\"tags\":[],\"updatedAt\":\"2026-04-13T13:23:43+00:00\",\"versionOfRecord\":[],\"versionCreatedAt\":\"2025-10-10 14:37:28\",\"video\":\"\",\"vorDoi\":\"\",\"vorDoiUrl\":\"\",\"workflowStages\":[]},\"version\":\"v1\",\"identity\":\"rs-7040884\",\"journalConfig\":\"researchsquare\"},\"__N_SSP\":true},\"page\":\"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]\",\"query\":{\"redirect\":\"/article/rs-7040884\",\"identity\":\"rs-7040884\",\"version\":[\"v1\"]},\"buildId\":\"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7\",\"isFallback\":false,\"isExperimentalCompile\":false,\"dynamicIds\":[84888],\"gssp\":true,\"scriptLoader\":[]}","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}