ArticleJournal of Indian Prosthodontic Society2026
Comparison of dimensional accuracy between two commercially available light-activated and chemically activated acrylic resins for verification jigs in implant prosthodontics: An in vitro study.
Article in Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimVerification jigs play a vital role in ensuring the passive fit of implant-supported prostheses by accurately transferring implant positions to the working cast. This in vitro study aimed to compare the dimensional accuracy of verification jigs fabricated using chemically polymerized (self-cure) and photopolymerized acrylic resin. SETTINGS AND
designIn-vitro study design. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixteen three-dimensional-printed mandibular edentulous models with embedded implant analogs were used and divided into two groups (n = 8). Group A jigs were fabricated using self-cure resin (Pattern Resin™ LS, GC America), while Group B used light-cured resin (Resinlay®, TDV Dental, Brazil). All jigs were sectioned and relined to compensate for polymerization shrinkage before pouring the final working casts. The casts were scanned using a desktop optical scanner, and standard tessellation language (STL) files were superimposed onto a reference model using Geomagic Control X software. Root mean square (RMS) deviation, linear inter-implant distance deviation, and angular deviation were calculated. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Statistical comparisons were made using an independent t-test.
resultsGroup A and Group B demonstrated comparable RMS deviation (0.057 ± 0.003 mm vs. 0.060 ± 0.003 mm; P = 0.170), linear deviation (0.084 ± 0.003 mm vs. 0.090 ± 0.002 mm; P = 0.270), and angular deviation (1.855° ± 0.023° vs. 1.965° ± 0.061°; P = 0.148). None of the differences were statistically significant.
conclusionBoth groups provide clinically acceptable dimensional accuracy in verification jig fabrication. Resinlay, with its superior handling and reduced working time, may serve as an efficient alternative in clinical settings.
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.