ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2025
Linear Dimensional Accuracy in Maxillomandibular Records: A Comparative Study of Scannable and Transparent Materials.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Maxillomandibular relationship records facilitate patient stomatognathic information transfer to dental laboratories, but new bite registration materials (BRMs) lack scientific evidence on linear dimensional accuracy. This in vitro investigation compared linear dimensional accuracy of 6 commercial scannable and transparent BRMs with a typical BRM at 1 h. MATERIAL AND METHODS Seven American Dental Association (ADA)-approved BRMs were categorized into 1 control and 2 experimental groups: control: Occlufast Rock; scannable group: Occlufast CAD, Virtual CADBite, and Flexitime Bite; and transparent group: Maxill Bite, Charmflex Bite, and Defend ClearBite. The study used modified ADA specification no. 19 to standardize bite registration record samples, which were examined using a stereomicroscope to compare with control group and standard die measurements. Median, interquartile range, and median rank scores were used for statistical interpretation. One-way ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis rank test) and multiple-comparison Dunn test with Bonferroni correction compared between and within group differences at the probability P value ≤0.05. RESULTS The median linear differences varied in scannable, -0.06 (0.24%) to -0.11mm (0.44%), and transparent, -0.06 (0.24%) to -0.07 (0.28%), BRMs, with transparent BRMs showing more linear accuracy than scannable BRMs. A statistically significant difference from control at 1 h was observed for 3 different commercial brands. All transparent BRMs exhibited markedly reduced linear discrepancies, compared with the standard BRM (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS All BRMs at 1 h showed a reduced linear dimensions, indicating shrinkage. All investigated BRMs demonstrated clinically acceptable linear discrepancies, with transparent BRMs exhibiting less change than scannable BRMs.
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.