ReviewCureus2024
Digital Impressions Versus Conventional Impressions in Prosthodontics: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Occlusal Adjustment in Free-End Implant-Supported Restorations: Digital Scans Versus Conventional Impressions With Full- and Half-Arch Techniques.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Clinical Performance of Stainless Steel Crowns and 3D-printed Resin Crowns in Primary Molars of Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Treatment preferences related to pulpectomy and prosthetic restorations among Lithuanian general dentists and prosthodontists.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 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
- Digital Workflow and a New Hybrid Impression Technique in Anterior Restorations Using the BOPT Approach.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Consistency of Intraoral-Scanner-Derived Occlusal Contact Distance Maps Between Centric Relation and Maximal Intercuspation.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Material-dependent trueness of intraoral scanners: A comparative analysis of three scanning technologies for different crowns - An in vitro study.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society · 2026Article
- Effect of live video output display of dental operating microscope on patient anxiety during restorative treatment: A comparative clinical study.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Enhancing digital workflows for removable partial dentures: A novel diagnostic surveyor and designer.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026Article
- Influence of intraoral scanner type on the marginal fit of digitally fabricated lithium disilicate crowns.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Digital versus conventional impression accuracy for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: AnBioinformation · 2026Article
- [Comparative study on the accuracy of extraoral scanning versus intraoral scanning in digital impressions for implant restoration in edentulous jaws].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2025Article
- Digital Smile Design and Patient-Centered Outcomes in Esthetic Restorative Dentistry: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Article
- Digital Technologies in Implantology: A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Impact of crown and inlay size variations on the accuracy of various digital impression techniques.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Accuracy of Digital Impressions for Veneer Restorations: A Narrative Review and Case Illustration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- [Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Impressions for Complete-Arch Implant-Supported Restorations].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The accuracy of definitive impressions has a significant impact on the quality of the final prosthesis. Elastic impression materials are commonly used in the traditional approach to replicate anatomical structures while indirectly fabricating prostheses. Digital impression has gained increasing popularity due to its various advantages, including three-dimensional previsualization, cost-effectiveness, and reduced time consumption. The objective of this study is to evaluate existing studies to provide an overview of the comparative advantages of digital impression techniques over conventional techniques. The review will focus on evaluating the accuracy, patient acceptability, operator preference, and time effectiveness of digital impression techniques in comparison to conventional techniques. The Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome framework served as the basis for this study's search strategy. We conducted a comprehensive literature review by electronically searching articles published between 2000 and 2023 in PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, and the Web of Science. Furthermore, additional manual searches were conducted. The study examined the differences between optical impressions and traditional impressions in terms of accuracy, patient outcomes, and operator outcomes. It included both clinical and preclinical studies as well as randomized controlled trials. In conclusion, this review provides a short summary indicating that digital impressions exhibit comparable accuracy to conventional impressions without any statistically significant difference. This conclusion is based on an evaluation of accuracy, patient preference, and operator preference.
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.