ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2021
Efficiency of occlusal and interproximal adjustments in CAD-CAM manufactured single implant crowns - cast-free vs 3D printed cast-based.
Article in The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Three-Dimensional Printer Technology on the Accuracy of Dental Implant Models.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparison between Conventional and Digital Workflow in Implant Prosthetic Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of occlusal and interproximal adjustments of single implant crowns (SIC), comparing a digital cast-free approach (CF) and a protocol using 3D printed casts (PC). MATERIALS AND
methodsA titanium implant was inserted at position of lower right first molar in a typodont. The implant position was scanned using an intraoral scanner and SICs were fabricated accordingly. Ten crowns (CF; n = 10) were subject to a digital cast-free workflow without any labside occlusal and interproximal modifications. Ten other identical crowns (PC) were adjusted to 3D printed casts before delivery. All crowns were then adapted to the testing model, simulating chair-side adjustments during clinical placement. Adjustment time, quantity of adjustments, and contact relationship were assessed. Data were analyzed using SPSS software (
resultsMedian and interquartile range (IQR) of clinical adjustment time was 02:44 (IQR 00:45) minutes in group CF and 01:46 (IQR 00:21) minutes in group PC. Laboratory and clinical adjustment time in group PC was 04:25 (IQR 00:59) minutes in total. Mean and standard deviation (±SD) of root mean squared error (RMSE) of quantity of clinical adjustments was 45 ± 7 µm in group CF and 34 ± 6 µm in group PC. RMSE of total adjustments was 61 ± 11 µm in group PC. Quality of occlusal contacts was better in group CF.
conclusionTime effort for clinical adjustments was higher in the cast-free protocol, whereas quantity of modifications was lower, and the occlusal contact relationship was found more favourable.
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.