Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32575559›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2020

Patient and Operator Centered Outcomes in Implant Dentistry: Comparison between Fully Digital and Conventional Workflow for Single Crown and Three-Unit Fixed-Bridge.

Paolo De Angelis, Paolo Francesco Manicone, Silvio De Angelis, Cristina Grippaudo, Giulio Gasparini, Margherita Giorgia Liguori, Francesca Camodeca, Giovan Battista Piccirillo, Viviana Desantis, Giuseppe D'Amato and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

11 authors.

Paolo De AngelisDivision of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Department of Head, Neck, and Sensory Organs, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0310-0037
Paolo Francesco ManiconeDivision of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Department of Head, Neck, and Sensory Organs, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Silvio De AngelisPrivate Practice, 63100 Ascoli Piceno, Italy.
Cristina GrippaudoDivision of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Department of Head, Neck, and Sensory Organs, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Giulio GaspariniOral and Maxillofacial Surgery Unit, Department of Head, Neck, and Sensory Organs, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCSS-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5091-5178
Margherita Giorgia LiguoriDivision of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Department of Head, Neck, and Sensory Organs, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Francesca CamodecaDivision of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Department of Head, Neck, and Sensory Organs, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Giovan Battista PiccirilloDivision of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Department of Head, Neck, and Sensory Organs, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4956-9145
Viviana DesantisDivision of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Department of Head, Neck, and Sensory Organs, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe D'AmatoPrivate Practice, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Antonio D'AddonaDivision of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Department of Head, Neck, and Sensory Organs, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScientific information about the effects of implant therapy following a precise workflow and patient and operators' preferences should be considered to choose which implant treatment protocol to use, and to achieve patient's satisfaction and functional results. The aim of this study was to analyze implant rehabilitations with a fully digital workflow and compare this approach with a conventional one.

methodsThis study comprises 64 patients treated with a fully digital approach and 58 patients treated using a conventional protocol. Patient and operator centered outcomes were assessed through two visual analogue scale (VAS) questionnaires.

resultsThe VAS questionnaire demonstrated better results for the digital workflow concerning anxiety, convenience, taste, nausea sensation, pain and breathing difficulties (

conclusionThe analysis of a fully digital and a conventional protocol showed better results according to patient and operators' preferences when a fully digital approach was used.

Indexed as

CAD/CAMdigital dentistryimplant dentistryprosthodontics

Identifiers

PMID32575559
PMCPMC7344688

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.