ArticleDentistry journal2022
Duplicating Complete Dentures with Conventional and Digital Methods: Comparisons of Trueness and Efficiency.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Denture trueness and subjective retention analysis of digital monolithic dentures.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2026Article
- The effect of nitrogen atmosphere during post-curing on cytotoxicity, polishability, flexural strength, and surface hardness of 3D-printed denture bases: an in vitro study.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of trueness, time, and number of images among different denture digitization protocols.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2025Article
- Accuracy of digital duplication scanning methods for complete dentures.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2025Article
- Clinical use of duplicate complete dentures: A narrative review.The Japanese dental science review · 2024Review
- A novel implant placement technique using a three-dimensionally printed duplicate denture for implant-supported overdenture in patients with severe residual ridge resorption: A case report.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- Effect of Duplication Techniques on the Fitting Accuracy of CAD-CAM Milled, 3D-Printed, and Injection-Molded Mandibular Complete Denture Bases.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- The Shear Bond Strength between Milled Denture Base Materials and Artificial Teeth: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA complete denture (CD) can be duplicated with a conventional or digital protocol. However, there are no comparative studies of these methods. This study aimed to compare the trueness and efficiency of conventional and digital CD duplication methods.
methodsA mandibular CD was digitized as the virtual reference model and duplicated using five methods (
resultsThe conventional group was the least true with the largest RMS (mean, 95% CI) in all of the comparisons. The four digital groups yielded similar trueness values across the dentition, cameo denture extension, and intaglio areas, yet they had a significant difference in the whole denture comparison between the Digital-CBCT-SLA printer (0.17, 0.15-0.19 mm) and Digital-Laboratory Scanner-SLA printer (0.13, 0.11-0.15 mm). The conventional protocol required longer trimming and finishing time (7.55 ± 1.02 min), as well as total labor time (27.64 ± 1.72 min) than the other four digital techniques.
conclusionsThe conventional CD duplication method was less true and efficient than digital techniques.
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.