ArticleScientific reports2026
Dimensional accuracy of dental impression materials evaluated using a standardized CAD based method across materials tray types and techniques.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this in vitro study, a CAD-based test workflow was established to evaluate the dimensional accuracy of conventional dental impression materials under standardized laboratory conditions. Ninety double-mix impressions were made from a rigid metal reference arch with four reference spheres using three elastomeric materials: vinyl polysiloxane (VPS), polyether (PE), and vinyl siloxanether (VSE). Guided impressions and freehand impressions were performed with both stock and custom trays. Impressions were cast in type IV dental stone, digitized with a laboratory scanner, and analyzed by comparing four linear inter-sphere distances with the reference model. Non-parametric statistics were applied. VPS and PE showed significantly lower global deviations than VSE, while VPS and PE did not differ significantly from each other. No significant differences were found between guided and freehand impressions when using stock trays. In the freehand-only comparison, stock and custom trays did not differ significantly; a borderline difference in the full cohort should be interpreted cautiously because of the partially crossed design. All measured deviations remained below the 1.5% linear-change threshold specified in DIN EN ISO 4823. This is the German adoption of a European and international standard for dentistry, specifically elastomeric impression materials. Within the limitations of this in vitro stone-cast workflow and linear-distance analysis, material selection had the strongest effect on global dimensional accuracy.
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.