SynthesisJournal of Indian Prosthodontic Society
Accuracy of single-unit ceramic crown fabrication after digital versus conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital workflow feasibility for the fabrication of intraoral maxillofacial prosthetics after surgical resection: a systematic literature review.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of subgingival finish line reproduction in intraoral scanning versus conventional impressions: a randomized crossover clinical study with/without gingival retraction.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2026Article
- Comparison of Trueness of Digitally- and Conventionally-Fabricated Mockups.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of marginal and internal fit of multi-unit fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional versus digital impressions.Dental research journal · 2026Review
- Marginal and internal fit accuracy of single-crown restorations: the impact of digital and conventional impression techniques.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes of Digital Versus Conventional Impressions for Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- The effect of burs wear during milling on accuracy of zirconia lithium silicate single crowns: 3-dimensional analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Review
- Comparison between Conventional and Digital Workflow in Implant Prosthetic Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- Accuracy of Intraoral Scanner for Recording Completely Edentulous Arches-A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2023Review
- AnJournal of Indian Prosthodontic SocietyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the present era when interest in digital dentistry is increasing, the published literature is still confusing about whether digital impression provides similar accuracy as provided by a conventional impression for the fabrication of a single-unit ceramic crown. The aim of the study was to systematically review the in vivo studies comparing marginal, axial, and occlusal fit of single-unit ceramic crowns fabricated after digital impressions with the ones fabricated after conventional impressions. The PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane online databases were searched for studies comparing the digital impression technique with the conventional technique for single-unit ceramic crowns. Data extraction was done for the year of publication, type of study, country, number of patients, impression system (intraoral scanner [IOS] or conventional impression), marginal fit, axial fit, and occlusal fit. Ten studies were included for meta-analysis regarding the discrepancy in marginal fit, axial fit, and occlusal fit. The digital impression proved to be better than the conventional impression. The mean difference for marginal fit was 6.54 μm (heterogeneity P < 0.00001, I
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.