ArticleScientific reports2023
Accuracy of intraoral scanning versus conventional impressions for partial edentulous patients with maxillary defects.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient satisfaction with conventional versus fully digital obturators fabricated with 3D printing: a randomized crossover trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Accuracy of photogrammetric technique versus conventional impression technique for implant-supported fixed complete dentures.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy Between Digital and Conventional Definitive Impressions of Edentulous Arches: A Clinical Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- New Digital Workflow for the Use of a Modified Stimulating Palatal Plate in Infants with Down Syndrome.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Accuracy assessment of intraoral scanning versus conventional impressions in edentulous patients with flabby ridges: a prospective clinical study.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2025Article
- Digitally-Driven Surgical Guide for Alveoloplasty Prior to Immediate Denture Placement.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- A Novel Intraoral Optical Scan-Transfer Device for Full-Arch Implant Reconstruction.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Trueness comparison of various intraoral scanners and hybrid workflow for ceramic restoration.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2025Article
- Impact of different lighting conditions on the tooth-shade selection using intra-oral scanners: AnHeliyon · 2024Article
- Physical and Dosimetric Characterization of Silicone Rubber Bolus for Head Photon-Beam Radiotherapy.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of digital dental impressions obtained by intraoral scanning (IOS) for partial edentulous patients with maxillary defects by comparing them with conventional impression techniques. Ten subjects underwent an experimental procedure where three ceramic blocks were affixed to the healthy palate mucosa. Digital dental impressions were captured using IOS and subsequently imported into software. Conventional impressions obtained by silicone rubber were also taken and scanned. Linear distance and best-fit algorithm measurements were performed using conventional impression techniques as the reference. Twenty impressions were analyzed, which included 30 pairs of linear distances and 10 best-fit algorithm measurements. Regarding linear distance, paired two-sample t-test demonstrated no significant differences between IOS and model scanning in groups A and C, whereas significant differences were found in group B (P < 0.05). Additionally, ANOVA revealed significant differences among the groups (P < 0.05). No significant differences were found for the best-fit algorithm measurement of the dentition. IOS can provide accurate impressions for partial edentulous patients with maxillary defects and its accuracy was found to be comparable with conventional impression techniques. A functional impression may be needed to ensure accurate reproduction of soft and hard tissues in defect or flap areas.
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.