Trial reportClinical oral investigations2024
An innovative evaluation method for clinical comparative analysis of occlusal contact regions obtained via intraoral scanning and conventional impression procedures: a clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 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.
- Digital Analysis of Occlusal Contacts in Angle Class II and Class III Malocclusion.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2026Article
- Concordance Between the Occlusal Contacts Record Obtained Using an Intraoral Scanner and Carbon Paper.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2026Article
- Clinical Strategies to Improve the Accuracy of Articulating Paper for Detecting Occlusal Contact Points in Adults with Natural Dentitions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the occlusal contact regions (OCRs) obtained through an intraoral scanning system and conventional impression procedures via an innovative evaluation method. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifteen participants with complete dentitions and stable centric occlusion were included. Three groups were created based on the technique used to obtain the OCRs of quadrant posterior teeth at the maximal intercuspal position: 100 μm articulating paper (Control), an intraoral scanner (Test 1, T1) and conventional impression procedure (Test 2, T2). OCRs of control group were digitized by the intraoral scanner, while all conventional impressions were cast and digitized by an extraoral scanner. The virtual occlusal records of the 2 test groups were obtained by buccal bite registration. The OCRs within 100 μm in the 3 groups were three-dimensionally superimposed based on the tooth surfaces and the area of OCRs (S
resultsThe consistency rate of OCRs was 0.73 ± 0.17 for T1 group and 0.23 ± 0.13 for T2 group (p < 0.001). The positive rate of OCRs was 0.67 ± 0.15 for T1 group and 0.56 ± 0.23 for T2 group (p = 0.143). The mean OC was 51.32 ± 16.04 μm for T1 group and 68.20 ± 18.15 μm for T2 group (p = 0.024). The minimum OC was - 61.74 ± 35.38 μm for T1 group and 4.09 ± 27.15 μm for T2 group (p < 0.001).
conclusionsFor obtaining occlusal records in the quadrant posterior region, the tested intraoral scanning system was more reliable for recording occlusal contact regions and showed higher occlusal tightness compared with conventional impression procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: (1) The evaluation method can assist clinicians in making more objective analysis and comparisons among different sources of virtual occlusal records. (2) Occlusal tightness is a key and indispensable indicator in the evaluation of virtual occlusal records, and it can be quantified by measuring the occlusal clearance utilizing the current evaluation method.
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.