Trial reportBMC oral health2024
Comparison of conventional and digital impression approaches for edentulous maxilla: clinical study.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06400277 (In-Vivo Comparison of Different Impression Methods in Complete Edentulous Upper Jaw), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
In-Vivo Comparison of Different Impression Methods in Complete Edentulous Upper Jaw
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy Between Digital and Conventional Definitive Impressions of Edentulous Arches: A Clinical Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Review
- Digital era in oral rehabilitation: a scoping review of trends and implications for clinical practice.Brazilian oral research · 2026Article
- 3D Printing in custom tray design for complete dentures in patients with flabby tissues.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- In Vitro Study Regarding Cytotoxic and Inflammatory Response of Gingival Fibroblasts to a 3D-Printed Resin for Denture Bases.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Optimizing Complete Denture Fabrication With a Hybrid Analog-Digital Workflow: A Case Report.Case reports in dentistry · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe expectations for the clinical and laboratory phases of tissue-supported complete dentures (TSCDs) are changing. Currently, there is a trend towards fast, comfortable, reliable, and low-cost methods. In TSCD impressions, simplified impression and digital impression methods involving the use of an intraoral scanner (IOS) are becoming preferable. Given this situation, this study aims to compare different conventional and digital impression methods used in TSCDs.
methodsPatients with maxillary complete edentulism and healthy oral mucosa were included in this study. In the digital group, two different impressions were made using an IOS (Trios4) without (D1) and with (D2) artificial intelligence scanning (AI-Scan). In addition, a modified impression (D3) was made using the IOS in two steps, including the occlusal rim. In the conventional group, a two-step impression (C1) using an individual tray with zinc oxide eugenol and a one-step simplified impression (C2) using a stock tray with irreversible hydrocolloid were made. The comparison groups were determined to be C1-C2, C1-D1, D1-D2, and D1-D3. The best-fit algorithm was used to superimpose the impressions to be compared. The right and left vestibular areas, postdam area, palatal area, right and left matching area, entire surface, and borders were evaluated separately.
resultsFifteen patients were included in this study. In the C1-C2 group, the mean deviation at the borders was statistically significant (p = 0.01). No regions in the C1-D1 and D1-D3 groups exhibited significant differences in the mean amount of deviation (p > 0,05). In the D1-D2 group, the mean deviation in the palatal area was significant (p = 0,03).
conclusionIn maxillary edentulism, digital impressions have shown comparable results to conventional impressions, suggesting promising implications for clinical applications.
trial registrationThe clinical trial has been registered (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT06400277, registration date 06/05/2024, 'retrospectively registered').
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.