SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2023
Clinical outcomes of implant-supported and tooth-supported fixed prostheses fabricated from digital versus analogue impression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Marginal and internal fit accuracy of single-crown restorations: the impact of digital and conventional impression techniques.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Comparison of fixed dental prostheses digitally fabricated using various scan bodies: a clinical study.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2025Article
- Recent Advances in Intraoral Scanners.Journal of dental research · 2024Review
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
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the clinical outcomes of implant-supported prostheses and tooth-supported fixed prostheses, fabricated from digital and conventional impression. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe literature search was carried out on two electronic databases (PubMed and Cochrane Library). Randomized controlled trials (RCT) published from January 2011 to September 2022 were included. The bias risk was evaluated using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Further screening was done for meta-analysis according to modified Newcastle-Ottawa scoring criteria. Forest plot was generated using a statistical method of inverse variance of random effect with 95% confidence interval.
resultsA total of 8 randomized controlled trials were included for systematic review out of which four studies were based on tooth-supported fixed prosthesis and remaining four were based on implant-supported prosthesis. Further screening was conducted and three studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Tooth-supported fixed prosthesis fabricated from digital impression showed no significant difference in the marginal fit in any region measured, except for occlusal region where conventional impression showed more favorable marginal fit. Implant-supported prosthesis fabricated from digital impression showed survival rates ranging from 97.3 to 100% and there was no statistically significant difference in marginal bone loss (p = 0.14).
conclusionImplant-supported prostheses fabricated from digital and conventional impressions show no significant differences in their clinical outcomes. Tooth-supported fixed prostheses fabricated from digital impression have shown favorable findings in terms of marginal fit. Despite that, there is still lack of clinical trials with larger sample size and longer follow-up periods. Future studies that fulfill these two criteria are deemed necessary.
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.