ArticleJournal of dental sciences2022
Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 5-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses fabricated with CAD/CAM technology using direct and indirect digital scans.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Digital Workflows on the Design of Fixed Prostheses: A Systematic Literature Review.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2026Review
- 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
- Accuracy of digital impressions captured by an intraoral scanner in a partially edentulous mandible.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
- Trueness and precision of an intraoral scanner in digitally copying complete dentures.Journal of dental sciences · 2025Article
- Comparison of intraoral and extraoral scanners for volumetric assessment before and after caries removal by the ICDAS score: a quantitative analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Article
- Influence of thermal aging on the marginal integrity of computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing fabricated crowns.Journal of dental sciences · 2024Article
- Feasibility of images acquired using smartphone camera for marginal and internal fit of fixed dental prosthesis: comparison and correlation study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Analysis of the impact of various finish line designs and occlusal morphologies on the accuracy of digital impressions.Journal of dental sciences · 2023Article
- Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis when using an auxiliary geometry device.Journal of dental sciences · 2023Article
- Performance of high-translucent zirconia CAD/CAM fixed dental prostheses using a digital workflow: A clinical study up to 6 years.Journal of dental sciences · 2023Article
- Transforming smiles using an intraoral scanner and face scan application on smartphone.Journal of dental sciences · 2022Article
- Three-dimensional assessment of internal adaptation measurement of three cad/cam ceramic systems.Brazilian dental journalArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background/purposeAdvancements in digital dentistry and the development of intraoral scanners (IOS) have provided clinicians with an accurate and efficient alternative to analog impressions. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of the marginal and internal fit of 5-unit monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) fabricated with CAD/CAM technology using direct and indirect digitalization methods. MATERIAL AND
methodsThree teeth in a maxillary typodont model were prepared to receive a 5-unit zirconia FDP. Six different groups were created according to the type of scanner (intraoral and extraoral) and the type of workflow. For direct workflow, the typodont was scanned with two different IOS (3Shape Trios 3 [3S-IOS] and Cerec Omnicam [C-IOS]). For indirect workflow, after conventional impressions were obtained, the impressions (IMP) were scanned with two different laboratory scanners (3S-IMP and C-IMP). After the impressions were poured, the stone (STN) casts were scanned with the same laboratory scanners (3S-STN and C-STN). Sixty 5-unit monolithic zirconia FDPs (10 in each group) were designed and milled. The marginal and internal fit was assessed.
resultsThe mean marginal gap values were 78.2±9 μm in the IOS group, 82.6± 9 μm in the IMP group, and 82.6±9 μm in the STN group, indicating no statistically significant differences among groups (p > 0.05). The mean axial gap values were 77.7 ± 10 μm in IOS group, 83.61 ± 15 μm in the IMP group, and 84.5±9 μm in the STN group, indicating no statistically significant differences among groups (p > 0.05).
conclusionThe marginal and internal fit of 5-unit monolithic zirconia FDPs fabricated with direct and indirect digital scans were similar. The smallest gap values were observed at the marginal region while the greatest gap values were detected at the occlusal region.
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.