ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Conventional and Digital Impressions for Fabrication of Complete Implant-Supported Bars: A Comparative In Vitro 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- In Vivo Complete Arch Implant Impressions: Comparison of the Linear Precision of Digital and Conventional Techniques.International dental journal · 2026Article
- The Trueness between Conventional Impression and Different Intraoral Scanners for All-on-4 Implants: An In vitro Comparative Study.European journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Impact of scanning errors on the trueness of digital implant impressions.International journal of implant dentistry · 2026Article
- 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
- The production and materials of mouthguards: Conventional vs additive manufacturing - A systematic review.Heliyon · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obtaining accurate models and well-fitting prostheses during the fabrication of complete implant-supported prostheses has been a significant challenge. Conventional impression methods involve multiple clinical and laboratory steps that can lead to distortions, potentially resulting in inaccurate prostheses. In contrast, digital impressions may eliminate some of these steps, leading to better-fitting prostheses. Therefore, it is important to compare conventional and digital impressions for producing implant-supported prostheses. This study aimed to compare the quality of digital intraoral and conventional impressions by measuring the vertical misfit of implant-supported complete bars obtained using both types of techniques. Five digital impressions using an intraoral scanner and five impressions using elastomer were made in a four-implant master model. The plaster models produced with conventional impressions were scanned in a laboratory scanner to obtain virtual models. Screw-retained bars (n = five) were designed on the models and milled in zirconia. The bars fabricated using digital (DI) and conventional (CI) impressions were screwed to the master model, initially with one screw (DI1 and CI1) and later with four screws (DI4 and CI4), and were analyzed under a SEM to measure the misfit. ANOVA was used to compare the results (
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.