ReviewCureus2025
Vertical Dimension in Prosthodontics Theory and Practice (Part II): A Comprehensive Review of Vertical Dimension Determination in Prosthodontics From Classical Methods to Digital Innovation.
Review 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The determination of vertical dimension of occlusion (VDO) represents one of the most challenging and critical aspects of prosthodontic treatment, particularly in edentulous patients. Accurate establishment of VDO is essential for optimal function, esthetics, and patient comfort in prosthetic rehabilitation. This comprehensive literature review aims to analyze the current evidence regarding various methods for determining vertical dimension (VD) in prosthodontic practice, examining their reliability, clinical applicability, and evolution from traditional to modern digital approaches. A search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. The search strategy included terms related to VD, prosthodontics, complete dentures, and measurement techniques. A total of 1,259 articles were initially identified, with 903 remaining after duplicates were removed. Following screening and quality assessment, 79 high-quality studies were included in this comprehensive review. The analysis identified two main categories of VDO determination: (a) pre-extraction record methods and (b) post-extraction assessment methods, the latter encompassing anthropometric/biometric approaches, physiological and functional techniques, mechanical methods, measurement devices, radiographic or imaging modalities, and esthetic evaluations. While traditional techniques hold historical value, their reliability and reproducibility remain limited. In contrast, contemporary digital methods offer greater precision and patient comfort, though their use demands advanced equipment and practitioner training. While no single method has emerged as universally superior, the integration of multiple assessment techniques with digital technology offers enhanced accuracy and reproducibility. Contemporary evidence supports a multifactorial approach combining traditional clinical judgment with digital precision and novel radiographic formulas for optimal VDO determination.
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.