ArticleBrazilian dental journal2024
Can Different Impression Techniques Affect the Chewing Efficiency of Mandibular Implant-Retained Overdentures?
Article in Brazilian dental journal, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several impression techniques and theories have been developed for implant-retained overdentures, each with its own set of advantages and limitations. This study aimed to assess the chewing efficiency of mandibular implant-retained overdentures fabricated using three distinct impression techniques (mucofunctional, selective, and minimal pressure impression techniques). Twenty-six patients with complete edentulism free from any oral or systemic disease were selected to participate in the study. Three complete mandibular implant-retained overdentures were constructed for each patient, and grouped into three groups according to the impression technique employed in overdenture construction; Group A: Patients were treated by mandibular implant-retained overdenture fabricated using mucofunctional impression technique; Group B: Patients were treated by mandibular implant-retained overdenture fabricated using selective pressure impression technique; Group C: Patients were treated by mandibular implant-retained overdenture fabricated using minimal pressure impression technique. Chewing efficiency was evaluated for each patient with the implant-retained mandibular overdenture after three months of prosthesis insertion as an adaptation period. The data were collected, tabulated, and statistically analyzed. Results indicated that mandibular implant-retained overdentures made using the mucofunctional impression technique showed higher mean values of chewing efficiency parameters than mandibular overdentures made using selective and minimal pressure impression techniques. Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the mucofunctional impression technique may be effective in improving the chewing efficiency of mandibular implant-retained overdentures more than minimal or selective pressure impression techniques.
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.