Trial reportClinical oral investigations2014
Randomized clinical evaluation of a light-cured base material for complete dentures.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Descriptive, Prospective Clinical Study to Evaluate Fit and Quality of Full Dentures Fabricated by Additive Manufacturing
An Observational Clinical Case Series Study to Assess Fit and Quality of Full Dentures
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare plaque adhesion, tissue reaction, and technical complications for complete dentures based on visible light-cured resin (VLCR) or on conventional poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA). MATERIALS AND
methodsA stratified randomized cohort study was designed with 52 patients treated with a complete denture in the maxilla (n = 28), the mandible (n = 2), or both (n = 22). Seventy-four dentures were manufactured, 38 of PMMA and 36 of VLCR. Investigators and patients were unaware of the nature of the denture base material. Plaque adhesion, tissue reaction, and technical complications were investigated 4 weeks after denture insertion (baseline). Recall investigations were performed after 6, 12, and 24 months.
resultsAfter 6, 12, and 24 months, plaque adhesion was significantly higher for VLCR dentures than for PMMA dentures. Tissue reaction was comparable for both groups, however. After 6, 12, and 24 months, need for repair was significantly greater for VLCR prostheses. The mean number of additional aftercare sessions per patient after 24 months was 50 % higher for VLCR than for PMMA.
conclusionsGood oral hygiene must be established by patients treated with VLCR dentures, to remove biofilm from these dentures. Increased aftercare must also be taken into account when this material is used. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: VLCR might be a viable alternative to PMMA for patients with allergic reactions to residual monomer or benzoyl peroxide.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.