Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30112398›Full record

Trial reportBioMed research international2018

Digital versus Analog Procedures for the Prosthetic Restoration of Single Implants: A Randomized Controlled Trial with 1 Year of Follow-Up.

Francesco Mangano, Giovanni Veronesi

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BioMed research international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Digital Technologies in Implantology: A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Francesco ManganoDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Dental School, University of Varese, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5488-4268
Giovanni VeronesiDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Research Center in Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Varese, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo compare the outcome of digital versus analog procedures for the restoration of single implants.

methodsOver a two-year period (2014-2016), all patients who had been treated in a dental center with a single implant were randomly assigned to receive either a monolithic zirconia crown, fabricated with digital workflow (

results50 patients (22 males, 28 females; mean age 52.6±13.4 years) were randomly assigned to one of the groups (25 per group). Both workflows showed high success (92%) and low complication rate (8%). No significant differences were found in the mean PIMBL between

conclusionsNo significant clinical or radiographic differences were found between digital and analog procedures; however, the digital workflow was preferred by patients; it reduced active treatment time and costs. The present study is registered in the ISRCTN (http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN36259164) with number 36259164.

Indexed as

Computer-Aided DesignCrownsDental Prosthesis DesignAdultAgedDental Implants, Single-ToothDental PorcelainDental Restoration FailureFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeDental Porcelain

Identifiers

PMID30112398
PMCPMC6077568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.