ArticlePolymers2024
Conventional Dental Impressions vs. Impressions Reinforced with Rigid Mouthguards.
Article in Polymers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metal Artifact Reduction in Oral Cavity MDCT Using Dental Overlays and the O-MAR Algorithm.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Innovative and Eco-Friendly Natural Fiber Composites for Dental Impression Materials: A Study on Wheat Bran Reinforcement.Polymers · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The impression materials utilized today in dental medicine offer a good reproducibility and are easily accepted by patients. However, because they are polymer-based, they have issues regarding their dimensional stability. In this respect, the present work proposes a new type of dental impression, which is reinforced with rigid mouthguards. The aim of the study is to test the performances of such new impressions by comparing them to conventional ones-from this critical point of view, of the dimensional stability. Three types of polymeric materials were considered for both types of impressions: alginate, condensation silicone, and addition silicone. In order to obtain the new type of impressions, a manufacturing technique was developed, comprising the following phases: (i) conventional impressions were made; (ii) a plaster model was duplicated, and 15 rigid mouthguards were obtained; (iii) they were inserted in the impression technique, with each mouthguard positioned on the cast before the high-consistency material was inserted in the tray and the practitioner took the impression; (iv) the mouthguard remained in the tray and the low-viscosity material was inserted over the mouthguard; (v) the impression was positioned on the model, and after the material hardened, the mouthguard-reinforced impression was analyzed. In the evaluation of the dimensional stability, rigorous statistical analysis was essential to discern the performance differences between conventional and mouthguard-reinforced dental impressions. Statistical analyses employed non-parametric Mann-Whitney U tests because of the non-normal distribution of the data. They indicated a statistically significant improvement in the dimensional stability of addition silicone impressions when reinforced with mouthguards (
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.