ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Evaluation of the Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impression Systems and CAD and CAM Workflows for Fabricating Dental Prostheses.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: Dental prosthesis manufacturing has undergone a radical change with the introduction of intraoral digital impression technologies and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD and CAM) processes. Investigations into these systems' accuracy in creating dental restorations that adhere to clinical standards are still underway. Materials and Methods: For this investigation, a total of 60 patients in need of single-unit crowns were chosen. They were divided into three groups of 20: Group A used intraoral digital impression systems, Group B used conventional impression procedures, and Group C combined digital impressions with CAD and CAM processes. The marginal fit and internal fit of the crowns were compared to assess the correctness of the dental prosthesis. A stereomicroscope was used to evaluate the marginal fit, and micro-CT imaging was employed to analyze the interior fit. ANOVA and Tukey's Results: The mean marginal fit was 120 ± 15 μm for Group A, 80 ± 10 μm for Group B, and 75 ± 8 μm for Group C, according to the data. The internal fit values were 150 ± 20 μm for Group A, 90 ± 12 μm for Group B, and 85 ± 10 μm for Group C. According to statistical analysis, Group B and Group C outperformed Group A in terms of accuracy in both internal and marginal fits ( Conclusion: When constructing dental prostheses, intraoral digital impression technologies and CAD and CAM workflows show better accuracy over conventional impression techniques. The greatest clinical results are obtained when digital impressions and CAD and CAM workflows are combined, indicating that these technologies need to be accepted as routine procedures in prosthetic dentistry.
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.