{
  "abstract": "Background Three-dimensional postoperative implant assessment is increasingly performed using intraoral scan (IOS) superimposition as a radiation-free alternative to cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). However, it remains unclear to what extent IOS- and CBCT-based measurements agree and how reproducibility changes across posterior mandibular configurations. Methods In this paired in vitro method-comparison study, based on the experimental platform of a previous study, 60 implants placed at Fédération Dentaire Internationale (FDI) positions 35, 36, 45, 46 and 47 in bounded edentulous spaces (BES) and distal extension situations (DE) underwent three IOS-based and three CBCT-based postoperative assessments relative to the virtual plan using the Treatment Evaluation Tool of the planning software. Angular, mesiodistal, buccolingual, apico-coronal, and three-dimensional (3D) deviations at implant base and apex were recorded, resulting in 180 paired measurements. Agreement was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis, and within-method reproducibility by the within-implant standard deviation (Sw). IOS variability was additionally separated into within-scan and between-scan components. Non-parametric analyses were used for comparisons by indication and FDI position. Results Mean absolute IOS–CBCT differences were 0.73° ± 0.55° for angular deviation, 0.22 ± 0.20 mm for the 3D base offset and 0.26 ± 0.22 mm for the 3D apical offset. Bland-Altman bias (CBCT − IOS) was small (− 0.35°; −0.05 mm; −0.07 mm) with 95% limits of agreement of [− 2.01°; +1.31°], [− 0.62; +0.53] mm and [− 0.73; +0.58] mm. Within-method reproducibility was superior for IOS in 8 of 9 parameters (e.g., Sw 0.20° vs. 0.55° for the angle), and IOS variability was dominated by scan-to-scan rather than within-scan re-evaluation. Discrepancies were larger in DE than in BES sites in 7 of 9 parameters (all p < 0.001 for the principal apical and buccolingual components) and were larger at position 47 than at position 35 (3D base p = 0.004; 3D apex p = 0.011). Conclusions In this in vitro setting, IOS- and CBCT-based implant assessment in the posterior mandible showed good agreement with small overall differences, and IOS demonstrated lower within-method variability than CBCT. IOS-based superimposition may therefore serve as a radiation-free complement to CBCT for the postoperative evaluation of single implants in bounded posterior sites. Agreement decreased in distal extension situations and at more distal positions; in these configurations, and whenever clinical decisions depend on sub-millimeter or sub-degree precision, CBCT remains the reference technique. Confirmation in vivo is required before routine clinical use.",
  "abstract_shown": true,
  "affiliations": [
    "Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, D-37075 Goettingen, Germany",
    "Muenster, Germany",
    "Dental Practice, Hildesheim, Germany",
    "Dental Practice, Aachen, Germany"
  ],
  "article_type": "research article",
  "arxiv": null,
  "author_total": 7,
  "authors": [
    {
      "affs": [
        0
      ],
      "name": "Georg Hoene"
    },
    {
      "affs": [
        1
      ],
      "name": "Shabnam Shahpasand"
    },
    {
      "affs": [
        0
      ],
      "name": "Felix Karl Waffenschmidt"
    },
    {
      "affs": [
        0
      ],
      "name": "Frederik Holdorf"
    },
    {
      "affs": [
        2
      ],
      "name": "Robert Stünkel"
    },
    {
      "affs": [
        3
      ],
      "name": "Alexander-Nicolai Zeller"
    },
    {
      "affs": [
        0
      ],
      "name": "Philipp Kauffmann"
    }
  ],
  "bibtex": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/cmy0z3pr05byr.bib",
  "cited_by": 0,
  "doi": "10.1186/s40729-026-00725-y",
  "fulltext_url": "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13691051/?tool=EBI",
  "id": "cmy0z3pr05byr",
  "issns": [
    "2198-4034"
  ],
  "landing_url": "https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13691051",
  "language": "eng",
  "licence": "CC-BY",
  "licence_label": "CC BY",
  "licence_source": "article",
  "licence_url": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
  "metadata_licence": null,
  "native_subjects": [
    [
      "lcc",
      "R"
    ],
    [
      "lcc",
      "RK1-715"
    ],
    [
      "openalex",
      "3504|Dental Radiography and Imaging"
    ]
  ],
  "openalex": "W7223238954",
  "pdf_url": "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13691051/pdf/?tool=EBI",
  "pmcid": "PMC13691051",
  "pmid": null,
  "published": "2026-10-23",
  "publisher": "SpringerOpen",
  "ris": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/cmy0z3pr05byr.ris",
  "sources": [
    {
      "first_seen": "2026-10-30T12:20:00Z",
      "native_id": "PMC:PMC13691051",
      "source": "europepmc",
      "url": "https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13691051"
    },
    {
      "first_seen": "2026-10-30T13:46:03Z",
      "native_id": "7ef5aea3968e4938a692c21d1bb88071",
      "source": "doaj",
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-026-00725-y"
    }
  ],
  "subjects": [
    {
      "field": "medicine",
      "origin": "lcc:R",
      "subfield": "general"
    }
  ],
  "title": "Agreement and reproducibility of intraoral scan- versus CBCT-based three-dimensional implant position assessment in the posterior mandible — a paired in vitro method-comparison study",
  "title_text": "Agreement and reproducibility of intraoral scan- versus CBCT-based three-dimensional implant position assessment in the posterior mandible — a paired in vitro method-comparison study",
  "type": "peer-reviewed",
  "updated_at": "2026-10-30T13:46:03Z",
  "url": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/cmy0z3pr05byr",
  "venue": "International journal of implant dentistry",
  "versions": []
}