ReviewCureus2024
Comparative Assessment of the Accuracy of Digital Versus Conventional Interocclusal Records in Dentulous Patients: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Paper to Pixels-A Narrative Review of Occlusal Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Article
- Accuracy of digital interocclusal records at various protrusive mandibular positions: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Scanner-agnostic dynamic jaw motion generation from virtual static excursive records using open-source Python-based artificial intelligence (AI) interpolation.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interocclusal registration is an essential step in oral rehabilitation. Conventionally, interocclusal registration has been conducted using interocclusal records made of wax or silicone. However, a digital method of registration utilizing an intraoral scanner has been introduced for analyzing inter-arch relationships. This systematic review aims to compare digital interocclusal records with conventional interocclusal records by considering their respective quality, such as accuracy. A thorough search was conducted to gather relevant research from databases such as Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scopus. After evaluating the study's methodological quality assessment using NIH's Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies, two independent reviewers assessed the publications for inclusion and exclusion criteria. After a methodical search, a total of five relevant papers were reviewed. The review's primary finding was that digital interocclusal records were more accurate than conventional interocclusal records.
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.