ArticleThe Journal of prosthetic dentistry2020
Clinical acceptance of single-unit crowns and its association with impression and tissue displacement techniques: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.
Article in The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
statement of problemThe definitive impression for a single-unit crown involves many material and technique factors that may affect the success of the crown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to determine whether impression technique (tray selection), impression material, or tissue displacement technique are associated with the clinical acceptability of the crown (CAC). MATERIAL AND
methodsDentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network documented details of the preparation, impression, and delivery of 3730 consecutive single-unit crowns. Mixed-effects logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate associations between impression techniques and materials and the CAC and to assess associations between the presence of a subgingival margin with the displacement technique and the outcome variables CAC and number of impressions required.
resultsOf the 3730 crowns, 3589 (96.2%) were deemed clinically acceptable. A significant difference in the CAC was found with different impression techniques (P<.001) and different impression materials (P<.001). The percentage of the CAC for digital scans was 99.5%, 95.8% for dual-arch trays, 95.2% for quadrant trays, and 94.0% for complete-arch impression trays. Although no statistically significant difference was found in the CAC produced with dual-arch trays without both mesial and distal contacts, crowns fabricated under these conditions were less likely to achieve excellent occlusion. The percentage of the CAC for digital scans was 99.5%, 97.0% for polyether impressions, 95.5% for polyvinyl siloxane impressions, and 90.5% for other impression materials. Accounting for the location of the margin, the use of a dual-cord displacement technique was significantly associated with lower rates of requiring more than 1 impression (P=.015, odds ratio=1.43).
conclusionsDual-arch trays produced clinically acceptable crowns; however, if the prepared tooth was unbounded, the occlusal fit was more likely to have been compromised. Digital scans produced a slightly higher rate of CAC than conventional impression materials. The use of a dual-cord technique was associated with a decreased need to remake impressions when the margins were subgingival.
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.