Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33163237›Full record

ArticleCase reports in dentistry2020

The Digital Abutment Check: An Improvement of the Fully Digital Workflow.

Sebastian Hinz, Daniel Ellmann, Christian Wegner, Wolfgang Bömicke, Tobias Bensel

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Case reports in 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Sebastian HinzDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Medicine, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburger Straße 16, 06112 Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6671-5971
Daniel EllmannR+K CAD/CAM Technologie GmbH & Co.KG, Ruwerstieg 43, 12681 Berlin, Germany.
Christian WegnerDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Medicine, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburger Straße 16, 06112 Halle (Saale), Germany.
Wolfgang BömickeDepartment of Oral, Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, Heidelberg 69120, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8411-8748
Tobias BenselDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Medicine, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburger Straße 16, 06112 Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4617-5984

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

By using modern digitalization techniques, an existing denture can be digitized and aid the provision of a new implant-supported denture according to a fully digital workflow. This includes fully navigated implant surgery and results in an immediately provided prosthetic restoration. However, even with the current digital workflow, it is challenging to achieve a definitive prosthetic restoration in a single treatment session. In order to achieve a definitive denture in as few treatment sessions as possible, we have implemented the digital abutment test. This test modified the existing data set and determined the final restoration. In the present case, the preexisting maxillary removable complete denture was converted into a fixed immediate restoration using the fully digital workflow. The workflow is divided into two treatment phases, each with three treatment sessions, where part of the second phase involves an innovative digital abutment check. The illustrated case shows an effective use of current digital possibilities. Special attention was also paid to a minimally invasive course of therapy.

Identifiers

PMID33163237
PMCPMC7604591

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.