Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39350584›Full record

Trial reportClinical implant dentistry and related research2025

Fully digital versus conventional workflow: Are removable complete overdentures equally good? A randomized crossover trial.

Thomas Van de Winkel, Frans Delfos, Olleke van der Heijden, Ewald Bronkhorst, Luc Verhamme, Gert Meijer

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative StudyEquivalence Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Thomas Van de WinkelDepartment of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5998-938X
Frans DelfosDental Laboratory, Department of Dentistry, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Olleke van der HeijdenSamenwerkende Tandartsen, Colosseum Dental, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ewald BronkhorstRadboud Institute of Health Sciences, Department of Dentistry, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0953-8053
Luc VerhammeDepartment of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9300-2042
Gert MeijerDepartment of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5408-2094

Funding

ZonMw 843002808
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionImplant-supported removable complete overdentures (IODs) are a common treatment in case of edentulism and malfunctioning of the conventional denture. Manufacturing IODs in a conventional way (C-IODs) is time-consuming, but in a digital workflow, this can be done in three sessions. Digitally produced IODs (3D-IODs) are also more advantageous than C-IODs because lost or broken 3D-IODs can be swiftly reproduced as the digital design is always available. PURPOSE: To prove in a non-inferiority study, with a margin of 0.3 point per Oral Health Impact Profile-20 (OHIP-20) question, that IODs made according to a fully digital workflow (3D-IODs), function as good as C-IODs with respect to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). MATERIALS AND

methodsThis randomized crossover study included 36 fully edentulous patients who showed extreme resorption of the maxillary alveolar process, making denture retention difficult. After a maxillary bone augmentation and the installation of 4-6 implants, each patient wore both types of IOD for 1 year each, with the order reversed in two subsets of patients. The 3D-IODs and C-IODs were fabricated in advance for both jaws (at least two mandibular implants were already present). The OHIP-20 survey was performed at baseline, after 1 year (before the IOD switch), and after 2 years to determine patient satisfaction scores using a visual analog scale (VAS). The general health status was assessed using the Short Form (SF-36) questionnaire.

resultsRegarding the PROMs, patients preferred the 3D-IOD: the improvement on the overall OHIP scale (0-4), expressed as a mean, was 0.26 points greater than for the C-IOD (p < 0.001). This applied also to the VAS scale (1-100) with an increase of 7.37 points (p < 0.001). Regarding the SF-36 scale, only for the item "emotional well-being," the 3D-IOD scored significantly better (p = 0.033).

conclusionCompared with conventionally fabricated C-IODs, fully digitally produced 3D-IODs resulted in significantly higher OHIP-20 and satisfaction scores.

Indexed as

Computer-Aided DesignDental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedDenture DesignDenture, OverlayWorkflowAgedCross-Over StudiesDenture, CompleteFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMouth, EdentulousPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionCAD/CAMdigital workflowedentulousimplant overdentureOHIP‐20OHRQoLPROMs

Identifiers

PMID39350584
PMCPMC11739062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.