ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Comparison of Milled Full-Arch Implant-Supported Frameworks Realised with a Full Digital Workflow or from Conventional Impression: A Clinical Study.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Arch- and Morphology-Related Variation in Early Marginal Bone Remodeling of Monolithic Zirconia Full-Arch Prostheses: An Exploratory Prospective Cohort Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the accuracy of digital workflow for implant-supported full-arch fixed dental prostheses using a novel micro-CT measurement technique.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026Article
- Marginal and Internal Adaptation of Implant-Supported Three-Unit Metal Frameworks Fabricated by the Conventional, Semi-Digital, and Fully Digital Techniques Before and After Porcelain Application.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
- Effect of different impression techniques on marginal integrity of CAD-CAM milled all-on-four mandibular frameworks: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Accuracy of Full-Arch Intraoral Scans Versus Conventional Impression: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis and a Proposal to Standardise the Analysis of the Accuracy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- The effect of different scanning protocols on precision and trueness of intraoral scanning: A pilot trial.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- Article
- The Influence of Laboratory Scanner versus Intra-Oral Scanner on Determining Axes and Distances between Three Implants in a Straight Line by Using Two Different Intraoral Scan Bodies: A Pilot In Vitro Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Conventional and Digital Impressions for Fabrication of Complete Implant-Supported Bars: A Comparative In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the present study was to investigate the accuracy of a new digital impression system, comparing it to the plaster impression technique in the realization of full-arch implant-supported metal frameworks.
methodsWe took 11 scans (8 of the upper maxilla and 3 of the lower jaw) on a sample of nine patients previously rehabilitated with fixed full-arch screw-retained prostheses following the Columbus Bridge Protocol (CBP) with four to six implants (total: 51) since at least 4 months. Two impressions were taken for each dental arch: one analogic plaster impression using pick-up copings and an open tray technique and a second one using an intra-oral scanner. Two milled metal substructures were realised. The precision and passivity of the substructures were clinically analysed through the Sheffield test and endo-oral radiographs. Laboratory scans of the plaster casts obtained from an intra-oral scanner (IOS) and of the plaster casts obtained from traditional impression were compared with the intraoral scans following Hausdorff's method and an industrial digital method of optical detection to measure discrepancies. A Mann-Whitney test was performed in order to investigate average distances between surfaces after the superposition.
resultsThe Sheffield test demonstrated an excellent passivity of the frameworks obtained through both the digital and the analogic method. In 81.81% of cases (n = 9) both substructures were found to have a perfect fit with excellent passivity, while in 18.18% (n = 2) of cases the substructures were found to have a very slight discrepancy. From the radiographic examination, no gaps between the frameworks and the implant heads or multiunit abutments were observed, with 100% accuracy. By superimposing digital files of scans according to Hausdorff's method, a statistically significant discrepancy (
conclusionsThe present study clinically demonstrates that milled implant-supported full-arch frameworks obtained through a digital scan and the herein described technique have an accuracy comparable to those obtained with traditional plaster impression.
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.