ArticleJournal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists2025
Comparison of trueness, time, and number of images among different denture digitization protocols.
Article in Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of trueness, time, and number of images among different denture digitization protocols.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare trueness, time, and number of images of different denture digitization protocols. MATERIALS AND
methodsMaxillary and mandibular complete prostheses (n = 10) were fabricated and attached with four fiducial markers. Reference scans were obtained using a laboratory scanner. Test scans were obtained using three different protocols: intraoral scanner (IOS) with manufacturer's scanning pattern (MA), IOS with rolling scanning pattern (RO), and IOS- polyvinylsiloxane technique (IOS-PVS). The scan time and number of images taken were recorded for analysis. Using 3-dimensional (3D) inspection software (Geomagic control X), corresponding test scans were superimposed to the reference scan using overall best fit. For trueness analysis, the root mean square (RMS) value of the overall best-fit superimposition was calculated. One-way ANOVA followed by Games-Howell and Tukey post-hoc tests were applied to analyze trueness, scan time, and number of images. Qualitative analysis of trueness was performed using 3D color mapping.
resultsThe lowest RMS value was in the mandibular RO protocol (0.10 ±0.01 mm). The highest RMS value was mandibular scans of the IOS-PVS protocol (1.46 ± 0.09 mm). The longest digitization time was recorded in the maxillary MA group (3.34 ± 0.70 min), while the shortest was in the mandibular RO protocol (2.48 ± 0.56 min). Qualitative analysis revealed that deviation in IOS-PVS protocol occurred around the border area of the prosthesis.
conclusionThe denture digitization protocols tested significantly affected trueness, total scanning time, and number of images. Digitizing dentures using the RO protocol improved trueness and reduced scanning time and the number of images.
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.