{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["15(1)"],"submitter":["Emam NS"],"funding":["Alexandria University"],"pubmed_abstract":["Bar substructures may be utilized for fixed full-arch implant-supported restorations, where suprastructures are cemented as prosthetic shells. Certain clinical situations may necessitate intraoral scanning of the bar substructures. However, the scannability and the accuracy of the intraoral scans remain unclear. This study aimed to compare and assess the scannability and the scan accuracy of two different bar materials used for implant-supported prostheses. Two maxillary implant-supported substructures (bars) were milled from 2 different materials. Group I from titanium and Group II from poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK). The substructures were digitized by using a desktop scanner (Medit MD-1D0410, Medit Corp). The STL file produced was considered the reference. Each substructure was scanned "],"journal":["Scientific reports"],"pagination":["43110"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12678416"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"pubmed_title":["Influence of substructure material on the scanning accuracy and scannability of implant-supported full arch bar substructures."],"pmcid":["PMC12678416"],"pubmed_authors":["Metwally NA","Khamis MM","Emam NS"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Influence of substructure material on the scanning accuracy and scannability of implant-supported full arch bar substructures.","description":"Bar substructures may be utilized for fixed full-arch implant-supported restorations, where suprastructures are cemented as prosthetic shells. Certain clinical situations may necessitate intraoral scanning of the bar substructures. However, the scannability and the accuracy of the intraoral scans remain unclear. This study aimed to compare and assess the scannability and the scan accuracy of two different bar materials used for implant-supported prostheses. Two maxillary implant-supported substructures (bars) were milled from 2 different materials. Group I from titanium and Group II from poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK). The substructures were digitized by using a desktop scanner (Medit MD-1D0410, Medit Corp). The STL file produced was considered the reference. Each substructure was scanned ","dates":{"release":"2025-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2025 Dec","modification":"2026-05-23T03:27:27.567Z","creation":"2026-05-23T03:14:05.361Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC12678416","cross_references":{"pubmed":["41339678"],"doi":["10.1038/s41598-025-28419-2"]}}