ArticleClinical implant dentistry and related research2025
Enhancing Implant Prosthodontics: In Vitro Accuracy of Coded Healing Abutments on the Edentulous Lower Jaw.
Article in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the accuracy of conventional and digital impression-making and cast-fabrication using coded healing abutments on an edentulous mandibular model under in vitro conditions. MATERIALS AND
methodsOur study investigated the accuracy of the On1 Concept (Nobel Biocare; Kloten, Switzerland) coded healing abutment system using conventional and digital workflows. The Conical Connection (CC) system (Nobel Biocare; Kloten, Switzerland) was used as the control group in both workflows. 10-10 open-tray impressions and intraoral scans were made from the reference model with each system. Models built from intraoral scans were additively fabricated, and open-tray impressions were poured with type-4 dental stone. The prepared models were digitized using a desktop scanner with an accuracy of 4 μm (E4, 3Shape; Copenhagen, Denmark) and superimposed on the reference scan. Four linear distances and root mean square (RMS) deviations were measured using metrology software.
resultsFive dimensions were measured using signed and absolute deviations, resulting in nine outcomes. RMS and diagonal deviations provided the most insight into overall model deviations. Mean RMS deviations were: 58.30 (14.95) μm for CC_conv, 47.66 (13.04) μm for On1_conv, 204.97 (37.40) μm for CC_dig, and 136.64 (13.49) μm for On1_dig. Significant differences were found between On1_conv vs. CC_dig, On1_conv vs. On1_dig, and CC_conv vs. CC_dig. Mean linear deviations between the molar positions were: 24.49 (58.20) μm for CC_conv, 87.46 (106.70) μm for On1_conv, -104.76 (125.83) μm for CC_dig, and 140.64 (190.56) μm for On1_dig. Significant differences were observed between On1_conv vs. CC_dig and CC_dig vs. On1_dig.
conclusionsBased on the RMS deviations, the conventional method is significantly more accurate at both implant and platform levels in the case of an in vitro edentulous lower jaw model. The RMS deviations of the implant analogs are smaller on the platform level with both conventional and digital methods.
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.