ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2024
Comparison between Conventional and Digital Workflow in Implant Prosthetic Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical parameters of implants placed bone level with cover screw or healing abutment techniques. 6 months post-surgery report from a randomized controlled clinical trial.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Trial
- Progressive Gingival Digital Workflow with Chairside Abutment Customization for Cement-Retained Implant Restorations: A Pilot Comparative Clinical Study of Two Treatment Concepts.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Innovations Driving the Future of Maxillofacial Prosthetics, Part I: The Technological Leap in Maxillofacial Rehabilitation.European journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Impact of scanning errors on the trueness of digital implant impressions.International journal of implant dentistry · 2026Article
- Review
- Digital Dentistry in Clinical Practice: A Scoping Review of Current Capabilities and Future Directions.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Treatment Planning in an Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation in the Esthetic Zone.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes of Digital Versus Conventional Impressions for Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Digital Technologies in Implantology: A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Evaluation of Undergraduate Dental Students' Opinions on the Use of Digital Versus Conventional Design in Prosthodontics.Dentistry journal · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The progress of digital technologies in dental prosthodontics is fast and increasingly accurate, allowing practitioners to simplify their daily work. These technologies aim to substitute conventional techniques progressively, but their real efficiency and predictability are still under debate. Many systematic reviews emphasize the lack of clinical RCTs that compare digital and traditional workflow. To address this evidence, we conducted a three-arm designed clinical RCT, which compares fully digital, combined digital, and analogic and fully analog workflows. We aimed to compare the clinical properties of each workflow regarding interproximal (IC) and occlusal contact (OC), marginal fit, impression time (IT), and patient satisfaction through a VAS scale. In total, 72 patients were included in the study. The IC and OC of the digital workflow were better than the others (
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.