Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30796587›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2019

Accuracy of crowns based on digital intraoral scanning compared to conventional impression-a split-mouth randomised clinical study.

Yasser Haddadi, Golnosh Bahrami, Flemming Isidor

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Clinical performance of intraoral digital impression for fixed prosthodontics: a Meta-analysis.Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Yasser HaddadiDepartment of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Vennelyst Boulevard 9, DK-8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. yasser.haddadi@dent.au.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9760-1563
Golnosh BahramiDepartment of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Vennelyst Boulevard 9, DK-8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Flemming IsidorDepartment of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Vennelyst Boulevard 9, DK-8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this prospective in vivo study was to evaluate the accuracy of the marginal and internal fit of crowns based on conventional impression (CI) or intraoral scan (IOS) in a randomised, split-mouth set-up. MATERIALS AND

methodsNineteen patients needing full coverage crowns, fitting a split-mouth design, were provided with two lithium disilicate crowns: one based on a CI and one based on an IOS. The marginal and internal accuracy of the crowns were assessed with the replica technique and clinically using a modified California Dental Association (CDA) quality evaluation system.

resultsAt the preparation margin, the median gap was 60 μm for IOS and 78 μm for CI. For the other points, the median gap ranged from 91 to 159 μm for IOS and 109 to 181 μm for CI. The accuracy of the IOS was statistically significantly better at all point except at the cusp tip. All crowns where rated R or S at both the 6- and 12-month follow-up appointments. The results for the clinical evaluation with CDA for marginal integrity showed no statistically significant difference between the two impression methods at both the 6- and 12-month evaluations.

conclusionsCrowns based on IOS show statistically significantly better marginal and internal adaptation before cementation compared to conventional impression. However, the clinical evaluation showed similar marginal adaptation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Crowns based on a fully digital workflow can provide clinically acceptable marginal adaptation, comparable to crowns based on CI.

Indexed as

Computer-Aided DesignDental Impression MaterialsDental Impression TechniqueDental Marginal AdaptationCrownsDental PorcelainDental Prosthesis DesignHumansMouthProspective StudiesDental Impression MaterialsDental PorcelainCAD/CAMClinical accuracyDental crownDental impression techniqueDigital impressionIntraoral scanning

Identifiers

PMID30796587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.