ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2025
Comparison of fixed dental prostheses digitally fabricated using various scan bodies: a clinical study.
Article in The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 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.
- Digital workflow for implant-supported restorations in the mandible including reverse scan bodies: a feasibility study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effect of scan body geometric configuration and library design on digital implant impression accuracy.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDigitalization in dentistry has increased interest in the use of intraoral scanners (IOs) in clinical practice. However, knowledge of implant digitalization is primarily limited to MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients with 25 short-span posterior edentulous sites, each receiving two implants to support a fixed restoration, were included. Digital implant records were made consecutively with original, non-original, and generic SBs using IOs. A practitioner implemented a two-stage full-arch scanning protocol, beginning with continuous arch scanning, followed by individual scanning of SBs. For clinical evaluation, each site received screw-retained full-contour restorations to qualify the connection fit to the implants and contacts to the adjacent and antagonist teeth. For analytical comparison, implant axes calculated from SB scans were quantified using reverse engineering software to compare the differences three-dimensionally. Restorative outcomes and implant axes records were statistically analyzed using the chi-square test and generalized estimating equations, respectively.
resultsClinical delivery conditions did not differ significantly among the three intraoral SBs (
conclusionSBs with different hardware and software characteristics for an implant system are clinically acceptable for fabricating screw-retained short-span implant-supported FDPs using a complete digital workflow.
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.