ArticleBioinformation2025
Comparative analysis of digital versus conventional impression techniques for dental implant placement.
Article in Bioinformation, 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.
- Effect of low-level laser therapy's effectiveness in reducing pain and bone loss around dental implants.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Dynamic navigation versus conventional 3D-printed guides in implant surgery: A randomised controlled trial.Bioinformation · 2025Article
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
Dental implant success is closely linked to the precision of the impression technique used. The purpose of this research was to compare digital vs. Conventional impression techniques for dental implants. A total of 100 patients were randomly assigned to either the digital group or the conventional group, with 50 individuals in each. Impression accuracy was assessed using deviation analysis, patient comfort was scored on a visual analog scale, and time efficiency was recorded in minutes. Digital impression techniques provide a clear advantage over conventional methods in terms of precision, patient experience, and clinical efficiency.
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.