Trial reportClinical oral investigations2021
Fit of monolithic multilayer zirconia fixed partial dentures fabricated by conventional versus digital impression: a clinical and laboratory investigations.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical outcome of translucent zirconia and metal-ceramic posterior crowns in a digital workflow: A 5-year prospective randomized clinical trial.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2025Trial
- Randomized clinical trial comparing monolithic and veneered zirconia three-unit posterior fixed partial dentures in a complete digital flow: three-year follow-up.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Trial
- Comparative evaluation of marginal and internal fit of multi-unit fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional versus digital impressions.Dental research journal · 2026Review
- Investigation of digital and conventional methods for verifying the fitness of CAD/CAM crowns on abutments with different shapes.International journal of implant dentistry · 2025Article
- Internal and marginal discrepancies of monolithic zirconia, polymer infiltrated ceramic, and lithium disilicate crowns: an in vivo study.Brazilian dental journal · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of CAD-CAM Milled Versus DMLS Titanium Frameworks for Hybrid Denture Prosthesis: A Narrative Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Review
- Effect of cement spacer on fit accuracy and fracture strength of 3-unit and 4-unit zirconia frameworks.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the accuracy of conventional and digital impressions based on the fit of produced three-unit fixed partial dentures (FPDs) in vivo and the trueness and precision of both impression techniques. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwelve patients received a conventional polyether impression (group C, control, n=12) and a digital impression with CS3500 (group D, test, n=12) for each participant. Monolithic multilayer zirconia FPDs were fabricated, and the internal and marginal fit were assessed using the replica technique. Trueness and precision of both impression methods were assessed in vitro. A master model was used to create a reference scan. The master model received conventional impressions (group C, control, n=5) and digital impressions (group D, test, n=5). The virtual models of both groups were superimposed over the reference scan (5 superimpositions) using a three-dimensional (3D) processing software, and the 3D deviations were measured and averaged to obtain trueness value. For precision, the virtual models of each group were superimposed over each other (10 superimpositions) and the average deviation value was calculated. The data were analyzed using one-tailed Mann-Whitney U test at P ≤ 0.05.
resultsGroup D resulted in a significantly better marginal and internal fit (30.91±15.15 and 30.86±13.57 μm for group D and 40.02±19.50 and 41.86±18.94 μm for group C). The mean values of trueness and precision for conventional and digital techniques were comparable (trueness: 62.8±5.45 and 62.72±12.01 μm and precision: 56.47±27 and 60.9±14.5 μm, respectively).
conclusionsNo significant difference was found between conventional and digital impressions in 3D datasets accuracy. In addition, both techniques resulted in FPDs with an acceptable clinical fit. However, the FPDs fabricated using the digital technique displayed better internal and marginal fit. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The applied impression technique as well as the computer-aided processing of the produced virtual models can significantly affect the fit of the final restoration. Direct digital impression is recommended over conventional impression for fabricating accurate monolithic zirconia 3-unit FPDs.
trial registrationThis clinical trial was retrospectively registered on August 11, 2020, in the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry database, and the number for the registry is PACTR202008685699453.
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.