ReviewThe Saudi dental journal2023
Accuracy of digitally coded healing abutments: A systematic review.
Review in The Saudi dental journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison Of Transfer Accuracy Among Hexed Implant Mounts, Clips Impression Copings, And Open-Tray Impression Copings at Different Implant Angulations: An In Vitro Study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in dentistry and dental biomaterials.Frontiers in dental medicine · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the in vitro accuracy of dental implant impressions taken using digitally coded healing abutments (CHAs) compared with impressions taken with conventional techniques (CI) and/or within the CHA group at varying degrees of angulations for multiple implant units. Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic electronic search in the MedLine, PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Some of the employed key terms, combined with the help of Boolean operators, were: "digitally coded healing abutments", "encode healing abutment", "dental implants", "impression accuracy", "digital impression", and "conventional impression". Publication dates ranged from January 2010 to November 2022. A total of 7 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 6 studies compared the accuracy of CHA with conventional pick-up impression techniques, and one study only used CHAs at different angulations and heights to compare accuracy within the group. The results were divided into Group A (elastomeric impression of CHA) and Group B (CHA + Intraoral scanner). According to the results of this systematic review, elastomeric impression of CHA performed poorly when compared to CI for multiple implants, although an intraoral scan of CHA appears to be more accurate. Within the CHA group, the angulation and visible height of CHA play a significant role in impression accuracy. However, more studies are needed before CHA can be recommended for all non-parallel multiple implant-supported restorations.
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.