ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2026
Prosthetic impression techniques for management of severely resorbed mandibular ridges: a systematic review.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess and compare the effectiveness of various prosthetic impression techniques in enhancing retention, stability, and patient satisfaction in the rehabilitation of severely resorbed mandibular ridges.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases including PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database to identify studies meeting the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, and Study Design (PICOS) framework. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating prosthetic impression techniques for severely resorbed mandibular ridges were included in the review. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool for RCTs. Data extraction was carried out independently by two authors, with disagreements resolved by third authors. The study adhered to PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews.
resultsA total of 6 studies were included in the final analysis. The results indicated that prosthetic impression techniques such as the neutral zone, functional impressions, two-step impressions, and admixed methods showed improvements in denture stability and retention. No single impression technique consistently outperformed others across all outcomes. Techniques such as the neutral zone impression and single-step methods showed favourable results in certain scenarios, highlighting the importance of individualized clinical decision-making.
conclusionThe currently available evidence on prosthetic impression techniques for severely resorbed mandibular ridges is limited and heterogeneous, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the most effective approach. Some studies report improvements in outcomes such as retention, stability, and patient comfort with techniques including the neutral zone and functional impressions. However, no single technique has proven universally superior, and patient-specific factors should guide clinical decision-making. Future large-scale RCTs are required to refine clinical guidelines and assess the durability of prosthetic outcomes over time. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251008136.
Identifiers
42918838What 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.