ArticlePeerJ2025
Trueness and precision of complete denture digital impression compared to conventional impression: an
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical evaluation of digital versus conventional impression in edentulous patients with flabby ridges: a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy Between Digital and Conventional Definitive Impressions of Edentulous Arches: A Clinical Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Accuracy assessment of intraoral scanning versus conventional impressions in edentulous patients with flabby ridges: a prospective clinical study.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2025Article
- Dimensional Accuracy Assessment of 3D-Printed Edentulous Jaw Models: A Comparative Analysis Using Three Laboratory Scanners.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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: This study aimed to compare the precision and trueness of digital impressions of the edentulous arch made with different scanners to conventional physical impressions. Methods: A total of 40 impressions of a completely edentulous maxillary arch model ( Results: The overall trueness, Medit had the highest deviation compared to the VPS and TRIOS groups with a
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.