ArticleDentistry journal2024
Direct vs. Indirect Digital Implant Impressions: A Time and Cost Analysis.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2024. 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.
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Orthognathic Surgery: A Scoping Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Accuracy of Digital Impressions for Veneer Restorations: A Narrative Review and Case Illustration.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the cost and time implications for implant-supported prosthesis comparing three digital impression techniques: digitization with an intraoral scanner, digitization of the conventional impression (without dental casts) and digitization of the stone models.
methodsTo assess the time and cost of digital impression techniques on implants, time records on intraoral scans were consulted and three models were created with one, two and six implants to assess extraoral procedures time. Costs were evaluated based on material consumption, time expenditure and operator-related expenses. Time was recorded in three stages: (1) impression-taking, (2) model fabrication and (3) overall workflow completion. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA to compare cost and time differences across workflows.
resultsIntraoral scanning presented a reduction in chair-side time between 4 and 20% when compared to extraoral techniques. For the three clinical situations evaluated, the intraoral scanning always presented the lowest cost. The extraoral digitization of impressions showed a reduction between 51.9% and 53.6% in laboratory time and between 3.5% and 7.6% in total cost compared to stone models digitization.
conclusionsThe findings of this study indicate that intraoral scanning is a more cost-effective and time-efficient alternative to traditional impression methods, providing advantages in terms of reduced material use and shorter procedural durations.
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.