SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2025
Lithium disilicate, full coverage crowns: what is the effect of using conventional impressions compared to digital impression with respect to the internal fit of the restoration? A systematic review.
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeDigital dentistry provides an alternative to fabrication of crowns. This systematic review focuses on the accuracy of the mean internal space of lithium disilicate crowns when comparing intraoral scanning to conventional impressions.
methodsOvid Medline, Cochrane and PUBMED were searched and the review protocol followed the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023379908) and guided by The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Cohen Kappa coefficient confirmed the agreement of data. The revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was utilised to evaluate randomised controlled trials The Methodological Index for non-randomised controlled trials.
resultsOf the six in vivo studies, three concluded that digital techniques improved the internal fit over their conventional counterparts. Two found that there was no significant difference and one indicated that digital technique resulted in an inferior internal fit. Of the eight in vitro studies, two concluded digital techniques to be superior, two found digital techniques to be inferior and four found no significant difference.
conclusionSignificant heterogeneity between studies limits the potential any systematic review of the internal fit of dental crowns when comparing conventional and optical impressions. This systematic review indicates digital methodology is comparable to that of conventional impressions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39472507What 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.