Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24817888›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of dentistry2014

Trends in computer-aided manufacturing in prosthodontics: a review of the available streams.

Jaafar Abduo, Karl Lyons, Mohammed Bennamoun

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of dentistry, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 114 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
114citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

114 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. 3D printing restorative materials using a stereolithographic technique: a systematic review.Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Knowledge, Attitudes and Practical Experience With CAD/CAM Technology Among Dental Students in Croatia: A Cross-Sectional Study.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Seating accuracy of removable partial denture frameworks fabricated by different digital workflows in comparison to conventional workflow.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Advances in 3D Printing for Removable Prosthetics-Insights and Perspectives.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

54 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jaafar AbduoSchool of Dentistry, Melbourne University, 720 Swanston Street, Carlton, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia ; School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3392-8641
Karl LyonsDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, 310 Great King Street, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-1102-0755
Mohammed BennamounSchool of Computer Science and Software Engineering, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In prosthodontics, conventional methods of fabrication of oral and facial prostheses have been considered the gold standard for many years. The development of computer-aided manufacturing and the medical application of this industrial technology have provided an alternative way of fabricating oral and facial prostheses. This narrative review aims to evaluate the different streams of computer-aided manufacturing in prosthodontics. To date, there are two streams: the subtractive and the additive approaches. The differences reside in the processing protocols, materials used, and their respective accuracy. In general, there is a tendency for the subtractive method to provide more homogeneous objects with acceptable accuracy that may be more suitable for the production of intraoral prostheses where high occlusal forces are anticipated. Additive manufacturing methods have the ability to produce large workpieces with significant surface variation and competitive accuracy. Such advantages make them ideal for the fabrication of facial prostheses.

Identifiers

PMID24817888
PMCPMC4000974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.