ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2025
Comparison of the accuracy of removable partial denture frameworks fabricated using conventional and digital impressions: 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. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRemovable partial dentures (RPDs) require metal frameworks for support, stability, and retention. Conventional impression methods are time-consuming and may introduce inaccuracies that affect framework fit. Intraoral scanning (IOS) offers a digital alternative that may improve accuracy and efficiency; however, few studies have quantitatively compared frameworks fabricated using IOS data with those fabricated using conventional methods. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of RPD frameworks fabricated using conventional and IOS-based methods. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study included 15 arches from 13 patients requiring RPDs. Each arch received two metal frameworks, one fabricated using the conventional impression method (CON group) and the other using IOS (IOS group). Qualitative evaluations included visual inspection and pressing with a plugger, whereas quantitative evaluations were performed using three-dimensional superimposition and gap measurements at the rest-seat areas. Paired t-tests were used to compare the accuracy, and two-way analysis of variance was used to evaluate the interaction between the fabrication method and tooth position.
resultsAll frameworks met the qualitative evaluation criteria. In the quantitative evaluation, the IOS group exhibited a significantly smaller mean gap (201 ± 78 µm) than the CON group (239 ± 83 µm) (
conclusionClinically acceptable RPD framework accuracy was achieved in both groups. However, accuracy was significantly better in the IOS group, especially at the terminal abutments of distal-extension RPDs.
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.