Intraoral scanners and traditional impression analysis for reliability between techniques in full-arch implant-supported prostheses: An in vitro study.

Claudia Peter, Priya Nagar, Vikas Vaibhav, Anuradha V, Priyanka T S, Gunjan Singh Aswal

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Claudia PeterDepartment of Prosthodontics, Rajas Dental College and Hospital, Kavalkinaru, Tirunelveli, Tamilnadu, India.

Priya NagarDepartment of Prosthodontics, Post Graduate Institute of Dental Science, Rohtak, Haryana, India.

Vikas VaibhavDepartment of Prosthodontics, Principal of Government Dental College & Hospital, Paithna, Rahui, Nalanda, Bihar, India.

Anuradha VDepartment of Prosthodontics, D A Pandu Memorial R V Dental College, Bangalore, India.

Priyanka T SDepartment of Prosthodontics, D A Pandu Memorial R V Dental College, Bangalore, India.

Gunjan Singh AswalDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, The University of the West Indies, St Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A full-arch implant-supported prosthesis impression through both digital and conventional methods is of interest. The use of digital impressions produced deviations which were much smaller when compared to conventional impression techniques. Data show that stereophotogrammetry obtained superior accuracy levels across the entire procedure. The deviations in digital impression results between anterior and posterior segments were higher in posterior areas. Thus, digital impressions met the requirements of clinical practice indicating their potential for use in complex implant procedures.

Indexed as

accuracyconventional impressiondigital impressionfull-arch rehabilitationimplant-supported prosthesisIntraoral scannerstereophotogrammetry

Identifiers

PMID41466684

DOI10.6026/973206300213020

PMCPMC12744485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.