ReviewAustralian dental journal2025
Clinical Recommendations for Implant Verification Jigs in Analogue and Digital Workflows. A Narrative Review.
Review in Australian dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMisfit at the implant-prosthesis interface arises from small errors that occur during impression-taking, cast fabrication and milling. Implant verification jigs (IVJs) have been described as a quality-control device in fixed implant prosthodontics, yet protocols and indications are inconsistently described This narrative review aims to compare materials and fabrication methods, map their functional roles and provide clinical recommendations for both analogue and digital workflows.
methodsPeer-reviewed English-language publications from 1 January 1980 to 30 October 2025 were searched on PubMed and Scopus using MeSH and free-text terms for dental implants and IVJs. Eligible studies include technique reports, in vitro studies, clinical studies and narrative reviews that reported materials, fabrication or functional roles of IVJs in fixed implant prosthodontics. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened against predefined criteria. Data were synthesised narratively by workflow and verification approach.
resultsFifty-two publications met the criteria (29 technique descriptions, 12 in vitro, 8 in vivo, 1 case report, 2 reviews). The materials reported for IVJs included PMMA, UDMA, photopolymerising composite resins and Type III/IV dental stone jigs. In analogue workflows, intra-oral and extra-oral verification procedures have been reported. In digital workflows, digitising IVJs or implant verification casts as well as CAD-CAM IVJs have been described.
conclusionsWithin the limits of this narrative review, IVJs can be used as adjuncts for conventional impressions and intra-oral scans with vertical scanbodies. Photogrammetry and systems that pair horizontal scanbodies and AI-based recognition provide datasets with greater accuracy, negating the need for conventional IVJs. Future studies should standardise verification strategies and evaluate long-term clinical outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This narrative review clarifies the indications for IVJs, outlines workable analogue and digital strategies, and provides clinical recommendations. Selective use of IVJs prior to the fabrication of the definitive prosthesis can reduce the likelihood of misfit.
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.