ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2025
Digital versus conventional surveying for partially edentulous arches: an evaluation of accuracy and time efficiency.
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. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis diagnostic study evaluated the accuracy and time efficiency of digital surveying compared to the conventional method for partially edentulous arches. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty Standard Tesselation Language (STL) files of partially edentulous arches were analyzed. Conventional surveying was performed on 3D-printed diagnostic casts, while digital surveying was conducted using CAD software (Dental Wings Inc., Straumann, Montreal, Canada). The path of insertion and removal, and determining factors (guiding planes, undercut areas, and reciprocation) were assessed. Sensitivity and specificity tests were used to measure accuracy. Sensitivity was defined as the proportion of true positives identified by both techniques, while specificity was measured as a percentage of true negatives compared with the conventional method. Accuracy was assessed as the ability to correctly differentiate true positives and negatives. The paired t-test (95% CI) compared the mean working time between the techniques.
resultsAgreement on reciprocation was 2.91 times higher in regions with a greater number of edentulous areas compared to those with fewer edentulous areas (
conclusionBoth techniques demonstrated high levels of agreement, especially for reciprocation and guiding planes. The digital method exhibited accuracy ranging from good to very good; however, it required a longer working time compared to the conventional approach.
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.