ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Comparison of the accuracy of the image registration methods for the impressions of edentulous jaws.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. 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.
- Digital Fabrication of Complete Dentures Using Multifunctional Custom Trays: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
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
objectiveThe aim of present study was to investigate the accuracy of two registration methods, best fit alignment and manual multi-point alignment followed by global registration, used in edentulous jaw impressions.
methodsTraditional complete denture impressions were taken via two methods: open-mouth and closed-mouth methods. The edentulous impression models, including maxilla:14 pairs and mandible:12 pairs, were scanned in the model scanner and saved in STL format. In the reverse engineering software Geomagic Control 2014, two registration methods, namely, best fit alignment and manual multi-point alignment combined with global registration, were used independently to align the open-mouth and closed-mouth impressions of the same patient, and the 3-dimensional (3D) deviation between the reference and test models was recorded. SPSS26.0, paired t test, significance criterion two-sided α = 0.05.
resultsThe nominal value threshold area was less in the best fit alignment group (maxilla 48.58%, mandible 44.16%) than in the manual + global registration group (maxilla 70.55%, mandible 66.27%), maxilla P = 0.000 < 0.05, mandible P = 0.014 < 0.05. The root mean square (RMS), average positive deviation and average negative deviation of the best fit alignment group were greater than those of the manual + global registration group, there were significant differences in the maxillary (P < 0.05), but not significant difference in the mandibular (P > 0.05).
conclusionThe manual multi-point combined global registration method is more accurate than the best fit alignment used in the registration of edentulous jaw impressions and is more effective for the maxilla.
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.