ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
In-vitro validation of a new method to assess the clinical accuracy of complete arch impressions.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and validate a new method to acquire reference distances. MATERIALS AND
methodsA method to accurately register the intraoral position of precision balls was developed to generate reference values for the in-vivo assessment of impression accuracy and tested in vitro. Therefore, metal occlusal veneers with a special abutment carrying precision balls were provisionally attached to specific positions on the patient's dental arch (anatomical model with PMMA covered metal teeth). To register the precision ball positions, form-congruent counterparts were jointed to the abutments, adhesively fixed to a transfer aid, removed and digitized with a laboratory scanner. First, the distance determination using a transfer aid and a laboratory scanner was validated. Second, the process was tested for an anatomic situation.
resultsWhen measuring distances using a transfer aid and a laboratory scanner, distances could be detected with an accuracy of less than 5 μm. Using the new test setup on the anatomical model, the intraoral scanners more accurately reproduced scan volumes up to one quadrant, with deviations between the actual scan data sets/plaster models and the reference data set of < 52 μm for Primescan, < 82 μm for Omnicam, and < 125 μm for conventional impression. Longer distances tended to be more accurately represented by the conventional impression (Primescan < 304 μm; Omnicam < 328 μm; conventional impression < 164 μm).
conclusionsThe developed method seems suitable for determining the clinical accuracy of conventional and digital complete arch impressions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For determining the clinical accuracy of conventional or digital impressions, reference values are crucial.
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.