ArticleCureus2025
Evaluation and Comparison of the Precision of Dental Implant Impressions and the Marginal Fit of Crowns Using Conventional and Digital Methods: A Clinical Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Article
- Article
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
Background Accurate impressions are essential for the long-term success of implant-supported restorations. Both conventional and digital techniques are routinely used in clinical implantology, each with its own advantages and limitations. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the precision of digital and conventional implant impressions and compare the marginal fit of crowns obtained from digital impressions and those obtained from conventional impressions. Methodology This prospective, comparative, clinical study was conducted at the Department of Prosthodontics between January and December 2024. A total of 36 subjects with single-unit implants were included in this study. Digital impressions (n = 18) were obtained using a calibrated intraoral scanner (3Shape Trios 4, Copenhagen, Denmark), and conventional impressions (n = 18) were made with polyvinyl siloxane using a closed-tray technique and scanned using a laboratory scanner (Medit T310 D, Medit Corp., Seoul, South Korea). Both generated Standard Tesselation Language files were analyzed for precision using Geomagic Control 2014 version 2.0 software (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) via best-fit alignment. The crowns were designed in Exocad, fabricated via direct metal laser sintering, and assessed for marginal fit using the silicone replication technique under a stereomicroscope at 40× magnification. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance for intragroup comparisons and independent t-tests for intergroup comparisons (p < 0.05). Results Precision analysis indicated no significant difference between the conventional and digital methods (p = 0.672), despite the greater variability in the digital group. Intragroup analysis revealed no significant differences in marginal discrepancy across the four sites (distobuccal, mesiobuccal, distolingual, and mesiolingual) between the conventional and digital groups (p > 0.05). Intergroup comparisons revealed no significant differences in marginal discrepancies between the groups at all sites (p > 0.05). Conclusions Conventional and digital impression techniques demonstrated comparable precision and marginal fit for single-unit implant restorations and achieved clinically acceptable outcomes. Further research is warranted to explore multi-unit restorations and long-term clinical outcomes.
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.