Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38566034›Full record

Trial reportBMC oral health2024

Effect of different fabrication workflows on the passive fit of screw-retained bar splinting two interforaminal implants: a parallel blinded randomised clinical trial.

Bassant Sherif Gamal Eldin, Ingy Amin Talaat, Noha Helmy Hassan Nawar, Ahmed Mostafa Abdelfattah Mohamed

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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. It is linked to trial NCT05770011 (Accuracy of Impression Techniques and Their Effect on the Passive Fit of Screw- Retained Bar Splinting Two Interforaminal Implants), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05770011 naunknown statusnot on this map

Accuracy of Impression Techniques and Their Effect on the Passive Fit of Screw- Retained Bar Splinting Two Interforaminal Implants

TypeinterventionalSponsorAin Shams UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled54ConditionsEdentulous JawArmsintraoral scanner of nonsplinted scan bodies, impression material, intraoral scanner of splinted scan bodies
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bassant Sherif Gamal EldinOral and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Organization of African Unity Street, Cairo, Egypt. Bassantsherif@dent.asu.edu.eg.
Ingy Amin TalaatOral and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Organization of African Unity Street, Cairo, Egypt.
Noha Helmy Hassan NawarOral and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Organization of African Unity Street, Cairo, Egypt.
Ahmed Mostafa Abdelfattah MohamedOral and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Organization of African Unity Street, Cairo, Egypt.
Ain Shams University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo clinically compare the effect of the conventional and the digital workflows on the passive fit of a screw retained bar splinting two inter-foraminal implants.

methodsThe current study was designed to be a parallel triple blinded randomised clinical trial. Thirty six completely edentulous patients were selected and simply randomized into two groups; conventional group (CG) and digital group (DG). The participants, investigator and outcome assessor were blinded. In the group (CG), the bar was constructed following a conventional workflow in which an open top splinted impression and a lost wax casting technology were used. However, in group (DG), a digital workflow including a digital impression and a digital bar milling technology was adopted. Passive fit of each bar was then evaluated clinically by applying the screw resistance test using the "flag" technique in the passive and non passive situations. The screw resistance test parameter was also calculated. Unpaired t-test was used for intergroup comparison. P-value < 0.05 was the statistical significance level. The study protocol was reviewed by the Research Ethics Committee in the author's university (Rec IM051811). Registration of the clinical trial was made on clinical trials.gov ID NCT05770011. An informed consent was obtained from all participants.

resultsNon statistically significant difference was denoted between both groups in all situations. In the passive situation, the mean ± standard deviation values were 1789.8° ± 20.7 and1786.1° ± 30.7 for the groups (CG) and (DG) respectively. In the non passive situation, they were 1572.8° ± 54.2 and 1609.2° ± 96.9. Regarding the screw resistance test parameter, they were 217° ± 55.3 and 176° ± 98.8.

conclusionConventional and digital fabrication workflows had clinically comparable effect on the passive fit of screw retained bar attachments supported by two dental implants.

Indexed as

Bone ScrewsDental ImplantsMouth, EdentulousComputer-Aided DesignDental Impression TechniqueDental Prosthesis DesignDental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedHumansWorkflowDental ImplantsComputer-aided designDental impression techniqueDental marginal adaptation

Identifiers

PMID38566034
PMCPMC10985940
OpenAlexW4393396869

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.