ArticlePeerJ2026
Article in PeerJ, 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
Purpose: This in vivo study aims to investigate the deviation of the residual ridge between digital and conventional impressions in the partially edentulous maxilla. Methods: Forty-four patients (22 female, 22 male; 64.8 ± 6.6 years) with partially edentulous maxillae were included in the study. Digital impressions were obtained using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3, 3Shape). Conventional impressions were taken with a selective pressure impression technique using the custom tray and a silicone rubber impression material. These impressions were poured with type 4 gypsum. Models were scanned using a desktop scanner (DS-EX Pro C, Shining 3D Dental). The dimensional differences between the digital and conventional impression scans were calculated and defined as the total deviation by the Geomagic Control X software. The vertical displacement at the incisive papilla, mesial, center, and distal points of each residual ridge were measured between the digital and conventional impression scans and defined as the deviations at Point P, Point M, Point C, and Point D, respectively. The residual ridges were divided into distal extension and non-distal extension. Results: The total deviation and deviation at Point P between the two scans was 0.0 08 mm and 0.0 69 mm, respectively. The total deviation and deviation at Point P exhibit ed no significant difference among patients. For the residual ridge of non-distal extension, the deviations showed no significant difference at Point M, Point C, or Point D (0.032 mm, 0.044 mm, and 0.034 mm, respectively). For the distal extension, the deviations at Point D and Point C (0.136 mm and 0.082 mm, respectively) were significantly greater than that at Point M (0.027 mm) and significantly greater than the deviations at Point D and Point C for non-distal extension (0.034 mm and 0.044 mm, respectively). The deviations of distal extension increased with the number of missing teeth. Conclusion: The location of the residual ridge had significant effect on its deviation between digital and conventional impressions. This study provides the reference value for the conversion from digital anatomic impressions to digital pressure impressions.
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.