Trial reportBMC oral health2022
In vivo precision of digital static interocclusal registration for full arch and quadrant arch scans: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consistency of Intraoral-Scanner-Derived Occlusal Contact Distance Maps Between Centric Relation and Maximal Intercuspation.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Recent Advances in Intraoral Scanners.Journal of dental research · 2024Review
- Review
- Recording maximal intercuspation and border positions of the mandible with intraoral scanner using the acquisition software's multi-occlusion function.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2024Article
- Comparison of Virtual Intersection and Occlusal Contacts between Intraoral and Laboratory Scans: An In-Vivo Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Evaluation of efficacy of digital or virtual bite registration over conventional techniques- A systematic review.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical studies comparing the accuracy of digital and conventional records for static interocclusal registration are lacking. Therefore, the purpose of this clinical study was to assess the precision of digital interocclusal registration compared to conventional registration for full arch and quadrant arch conditions.
methodsNine individuals with complete natural dentition were enrolled in this study. Each participant received digital scans, conventional impressions, and static interocclusal records according to the following groups: group DF, full arch digital scans and bilateral buccal scans with Medit i700 intraoral scanner (IOS); group DQ, quadrant arch digital scans and unilateral buccal scans with Medit i700 IOS; group CF, full arch polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impressions and PVS interocclusal records; group CQ, quadrant arch PVS impressions and PVS interocclusal records. For group CF and group CQ, the impressions were poured, mounted with the silicone bites, scanned with a laboratory scanner, and articulated virtually with buccal scans with the laboratory scanner. In each group, each participant received three interocclusal records to repeat the virtual articulation three times and the articulated models were saved as STL files. The STL files were imported into a 3D-processing software to calculate the discrepancies between repeated measures using best-fit-alignment method. The significance between the study groups was calculated with two-tailed paired t-test at P < 0.05.
resultsFor full arch, group DF showed significantly better precision with a mean value of 31 ± 19 µm compared to 204 ± 81 µm for group CF (P = 0.0003). Similarly, for quadrant arch, group DQ showed significantly better precision with a mean value of 18 ± 6 µm compared to 255 ± 136 µm for group CQ (P = 0.0009). No significant difference in precision was found between quadrant arch and full arch when the digital or the conventional method was used.
conclusionsThe digital approach had significantly better precision for static interocclusal registration compared to the conventional method in both full and quadrant arch situations. Trial Registry This clinical trial was registered on 06/07/2022 in the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry database, the number for the registry is PACTR202207648490275.
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.