ArticleBioinformation2025
Comparison of three conventional impression techniques for flabby tissues with intraoral digital scans.
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate impression making for flabby anterior maxillary ridges in edentulous patients remains challenging with conventional techniques, necessitating comparison of their trueness against intraoral digital scanning. Hence, the present study included twenty patients with maxillary edentulism and Siebert Class I or II anterior flabby ridges were included in this crossover clinical study. Four impression methods were performed for each participant: 1) Single-Step Mucocompressive Technique (SMT) with polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) in a stock tray; 2) Window Tray Technique (WTT) using a custom tray with zinc oxide eugenol and light-body PVS; 3) Modified Mucostatic Technique (MMT) with a spaced custom tray and light-body PVS; and 4) Intraoral Digital Scan (IDS) using a structured light scanner. The trueness of each technique was evaluated by superimposing the digital models onto the RSM and calculating the root mean square error (RMSE) in micrometers (µ). The window tray technique produced the most accurate impressions of flabby ridges.
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.