ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2025
Accuracy assessment of intraoral scanning versus conventional impressions in edentulous patients with flabby ridges: a prospective 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis prospective clinical study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral scanning (IOS) as an alternative to the conventional window technique impression (WTI) for recording maxillary flabby ridges in edentulous patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwelve edentulous participants with maxillary flabby ridges underwent both IOS (TRIOS 5, 3Shape, Denmark) and WTI. WTI impressions were made using zinc oxide-eugenol paste and plaster of Paris as the reference. All scans were exported in STL format. Accuracy was assessed via trueness and precision, using RMS, average negative, and average positive deviations, calculated with Medit Compare software.
resultsIOS showed significantly higher trueness than WTI in RMS (mean difference (MD) = -0.11, 95% CI: -0.15 to -0.06,
conclusionThis study suggests that IOS may provide improved accuracy compared to the conventional window impression technique for capturing maxillary flabby ridges in edentulous patients. Further research with larger sample size and clinical outcome assessments is needed to confirm its efficacy.
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.