ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
A randomized clinical trial comparing retention of complete dentures and oral health quality of life of patients with conventional and bioelectric impressions.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical and microbial study of reinforced 3D-printed maxillary denture base resin: a randomized trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
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
Aim: The aim of the present study was to comparatively evaluate the retention of complete dentures and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of patients with conventional and bioelectric impressions or transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS). Materials and methods: A total of thirty (n = 30) completely edentulous patients were randomly distributed into two groups: Group-C (n = 15) (Conventional) and Group-T (n = 15) (bioelectric). In Group C, border molding was performed using the manual manipulation of borders, and the final impression was made using zinc-oxide eugenol. In Group T, border molding and final impression were performed with the TENS application. Dentures were fabricated, and retention was evaluated with a digital gauge. OHRQoL was assessed at insertion and after three months of follow-up using the Oral Health Impact Profile Edentulous in Hindi (OHIP-Edent-H) questionnaire. A two-way ANOVA test was used for the significance level ( Results: There was no significant difference in the retention of maxillary and mandibular dentures fabricated with both techniques ( Conclusions: Although, there was no significant difference in retention and OHRQoL between both groups. However, more clinical trials with large samples and longer follow-ups are required to reach a conclusive result.
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.