Trial reportClinical implant dentistry and related research2025
Budget Impact Analysis: Digital Workflow Significantly Reduces Costs of Implant Supported Overdentures (IODs).
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital era in oral rehabilitation: a scoping review of trends and implications for clinical practice.Brazilian oral research · 2026Article
- Are Conventional Impressions Obsolete? A Narrative Review on the Applicability of Intraoral Scanners.Australian dental journal · 2025Review
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
Abstract
backgroundFor edentulism, an implant supported removable complete overdenture (IOD) is an attractive solution to restore patients' chewing capacity, aesthetics, and self‐esteem, however, treatment is expensive and time consuming. PURPOSE/
aimTo estimate the decline in costs for digitally designed and CAD/CAM fabricated IODs (3D‐IODs) compared to conventionally fabricated IODs (C‐IODs) at comparable general health related quality of life (GHRQoL). MATERIALS AND
methodA randomized crossover study enrolled 36 fully edentulous patients, in whom six maxillary implants were placed together with two mandibular implants, if not already present. At the start of the study, a set of C‐IODs and 3D‐IODs was fabricated for each patient. All patients wore each IOD‐type for 1 year: first the 3D‐IOD and the second year a C‐IOD, or vice versa. At all three‐time points patients general QoL was assessed using the EQ‐5D‐5L questionnaire as well as the SF‐36 from which the SF‐6D was obtained, to research the anticipation of no significant difference. To enable cost consequence analysis (CCA), both costs made within healthcare and patient costs were assessed. Subsequently, a budget impact analysis (BIA) was performed to demonstrate the potential savings.
resultsNo differences in general GHRQoL were seen between C‐IOD (M = 0.840, SD = 0.177) and 3D‐IOD (M = 0.837, SD = 0.156) (paired t‐test (N = 31): p = 0.880). With respect to the total costs for a complete IOD, however, the digital approach showed a reduction in initial total costs of 14.2% (€4700.33 vs. €4030.61: p < 0,001), in treatment time of 41.1% (309 vs. 182 min: p < 0.001), and in number of treatment sessions of 47.1% (5.68 vs. 3.0: p < 0.001). For repairs for an IOD in both the upper and lower jaw, the C‐IOD and 3D‐IOD scored similar for treatment time as well as additional costs.
conclusionImplementing a 3D workflow in the production of IOD's supplies patients with a high‐quality 3D‐IOD at lower costs.
trial registrationNL‐OMON44248 https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/44248.
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.