Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35072825›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2022

Comparison of conventional and digital workflow for dental rehabilitation with a novel patient-specific framework implant system: an experimental dataset evaluation.

Simon Spalthoff, Mandy Borrmann, Philipp Jehn, Björn Rahlf, Nils-Claudius Gellrich, Philippe Korn

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Simon SpalthoffDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg Strasse 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. spalthoff.simon@mh-hannover.de.ORCID 0000-0002-1381-1182
Mandy BorrmannDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg Strasse 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Philipp JehnDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg Strasse 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Björn RahlfDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg Strasse 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Nils-Claudius GellrichDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg Strasse 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Philippe KornDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg Strasse 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of a digital workflow by comparing the accuracy of prosthetic teeth positioning between virtual standard-size digitally constructed and conventional dental laboratory-fabricated prostheses.

methodsTwenty-five computed tomography datasets with a dentate upper jaw were selected after applying inclusion criteria to 100 random datasets obtained from the institutional library, and partially edentulous maxillae were constructed virtually. Digital datasets of temporary prostheses were fabricated on these virtually constructed edentulous maxillae in two ways: one dataset comprised prostheses that were fabricated conventionally using prosthetic teeth and wax in the dental laboratory and then scanned using a model scanner, whereas the other dataset was designed virtually using standardized virtual dental arches. The digital datasets of both prostheses were compared for differences at six dental-based measurement points with the original patient dentition.

resultsOverall, the conventional design pathway was more accurate than the digital one (conventional 2.915 ± 1.388 mm, digital 3.609 ± 2.052 mm, P < 0.001). However, when all six measurement points were evaluated individually, only three points showed significant differences in the tooth positions. Compared with the original dentition, the deviations were less in the anterior teeth region than in the molar region, fulfilling the esthetic expectations of the patients. Standardized virtual dental arches were practically adequate because virtual reconstruction of every edentulous case using these virtual arches was possible without any additional modifications.

conclusionIt is possible to fabricate clinically acceptable temporary prostheses using a comprehensive digital workflow based on standardized digital dental arches.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsMouth, EdentulousComputer-Aided DesignEsthetics, DentalHumansWorkflowDental ImplantsDental archesDigitally constructedEdentulousImplantTemporary dental prosthesisTumor

Identifiers

PMID35072825
PMCPMC8786984
OpenAlexW4207066044

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.