ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2026
Occlusal Adjustment in Free-End Implant-Supported Restorations: Digital Scans Versus Conventional Impressions With Full- and Half-Arch Techniques.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo quantify the occlusal adjustment required for two-unit, implant-supported polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) crowns with either digital or conventional impression techniques, using full-arch and half-arch workflows. MATERIAL AND
methodsAn acrylic maxillary-mandibular model carrying two bone-level implant analogs (sites 46-47) was mounted on a semi-adjustable articulator. Twenty impressions were made (n = 5 per group): digital full-arch, digital half-arch, conventional full-arch, and conventional half-arch. PMMA crowns were designed using computer-aided design (CAD) software, milled, and surface-scanned before adjustment. Occlusal contacts were refined on the articulator with 21 µm film while recording adjustment time. Pre- and post-adjustment scans were superimposed and analyzed using three-dimensional surface analysis software to quantify mean material reduction (µm). Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and independent-samples t-tests (α = 0.05).
resultsDigital workflows required significantly less occlusal reduction (146 ± 35 µm vs. 226 ± 35 µm; p = 0.035) and shorter adjustment times (144 ± 36 s vs. 385 ± 36 s; p < 0.001) than conventional, with no effect of arch span (full vs. half; p > 0.05). Within protocols, the digital half-arch group showed the smallest adjustment (127 ± 37 µm) and fastest finishing (98 ± 33 s), whereas the conventional half-arch group required the longest time (456 ± 21 s).
conclusionFully digital impressions reduce both the amount of occlusal adjustment and the chairside time needed to seat implant-supported crowns compared with conventional silicone impressions. Reducing the scan to a half-arch does not compromise occlusal precision, making the digital half-arch workflow an efficient alternative for posterior, free-end implant restorations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In implant posterior PMMA crowns, the impact of impression/workflow choice on occlusal adjustment is unclear. This in-vitro study measured occlusal reduction and chairside time across digital versus conventional and full- versus half-arch workflows. Digital, especially half-arch, required less adjustment and shorter time. Clinically, a digital half-arch approach may streamline delivery and reduce unnecessary material removal, pending confirmation in patient-based settings.
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.