Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Clinical evaluation of digital versus conventional impression in edentulous patients with flabby ridges: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07108322 (Clinical Evaluation of Digital Versus Conventional Impression in Edentulous Patients With Flabby Ridge. A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial), which is not on this 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.
Clinical Evaluation of Digital Versus Conventional Impression in Edentulous Patients With Flabby Ridge. A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
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
backgroundThe optimal impression technique for flabby ridge cases remains ambiguous despite the advancements in impression techniques. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare the Oral Health Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) and retention of maxillary dentures fabricated from intraoral scanning (IOS) versus window impression technique in completely edentulous patients with maxillary flabby ridges.
methodsThe study utilized a crossover design, where participants were randomly assigned to receive conventional complete dentures fabricated by using two different techniques for complete denture fabrication: one utilizing conventional impression method (Group I dentures) and the other employing digital impression technique (Group II dentures). OHRQoL and retention of maxillary dentures were evaluated at baseline (T0), 3 months (T3), and after 6 months (T6). A new complete denture was delivered for each participant after 6 months, with those initially receiving Group I dentures transitioning to Group II dentures, and vice versa. Comparison between groups using paired t-test, while comparison between different time points was performed by using Repeated Measures ANOVA test followed by Tukey’s Post Hoc test. The significant level was set to be at P ≤ 0.05.
resultsBoth groups reported improvement in OHRQoL with no significant difference between groups at six months follow-up period (P < 0.0001). Additionally, both groups reported a decline in denture retention at the follow up periods with no significant difference between groups at six months follow-up period (P < 0.0001).
conclusionDigital impression is a viable alternative to conventional impression in the fabrication of complete dentures for edentulous arches with flabby ridges with similar outcomes in terms of OHRQoL and denture retention.
trial registrationThe study protocol was retrospectively registered and posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov public website (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT07108322) on August 7, 2025.
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.