Trial reportBMC oral health2024
Auxiliary occlusal devices for IO scanning in a complete digital workflow of implant-supported crowns: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Impact of scanning strategies on the accuracy of virtual interocclusal records in partially edentulous arch using intraoral scanner: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the crown accuracy and time efficiency of a complete digital workflow, utilizing an auxiliary occlusal device and IO scanning, with a conventional workflow, for multiple implant-supported single crowns. MATERIALS AND
methods24 patients with two adjacent posterior implants were included. 12 patients were randomly assigned to digital workflow group, involving intra-oral scanning with an auxiliary occlusal device and manufacture of customized abutments and zirconia single crowns (test group). The other 12 were assigned to the conventional workflow (control group), involving conventional impression and CAD-CAM crowns based on stone casts. Crown scanning was done before and after clinical adjustment using an intraoral scanner. Two 3D digital models were overlapped to assess dimension changes. Chair-side and laboratory times for the entire workflow were recorded and a linear mixed model and Independent-sample t tests were used for the statistical analysis.
resultsThe maximum occlusal deviation was 279.67 ± 112.17 μm and 479.59 ± 203.63 μm in the test and control group, respectively (p < 0.001). The sizes of the occlusion adjustment areas were 12.12 ± 10.51 mm
conclusionsA digital workflow for two implants-supported single crowns using an auxiliary device required fewer occlusal crown adjustments, and less laboratory time compared to conventional workflow. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of auxiliary occlusal devices in IOS enhances the accuracy of virtual maxillomandibular relationship in extended edentulous spans. Consequently, employing a digital workflow for multiple implants-supported crowns using IO scanning and an auxiliary occlusal device proves to be a feasible, accurate and efficient approach.
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.