ArticleBMC oral health2023
Clinical evaluation of marginal fit of uncemented CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia three-unit restorations in anterior areas, using scannable and conventional polyvinyl siloxane impression materials.
Article in BMC oral health, 2023. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical performance of indirect hybrid ceramic onlay restorations cemented with injectable resin composite versus dual-cure resin cement: an 18-month randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Fit of three-unit anterior fixed dental prosthesis frameworks fabricated by different manufacturing techniques.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Marginal Fit of Three Commonly Used Veneers for Smile Enhancement: An In Vitro Study.European journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Accuracy, Reproducibility, and Gaps in Different Angulations of 3D-Printed versus Milled Hybrid Ceramic Crown.European journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Influence of composite resin core buildup translucency on the accuracy of an anterior CAD-CAM bridge fabricated with a digital impression.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- Marginal adaptation analysis of CAD/CAM resin crown with non-invasive methods.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Trueness comparison of various intraoral scanners and hybrid workflow for ceramic restoration.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2025Article
- Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe accuracy of impression techniques determines the marginal fit of fixed prostheses. Marginal accuracy plays a main role in the success and failure of treatments. This in-vivo study evaluated the marginal fit of anterior three-unit monolithic zirconia fixed partial dentures (FPDs) using conventional and scannable polyvinyl siloxane impression materials.
methodsTen patients were selected to replace the lateral teeth with a three-unit monolithic zirconia bridge. For each patient, in the first group, an impression was made with a two-step putty-wash technique using scannable polyvinyl siloxane material (BONASCAN; DMP, Greece). In the identical session, as the second group, an impression of conventional putty-wash polyvinyl siloxane was taken (BONASIL A
resultsThe marginal discrepancy in a conventional method for central abutment in mid-buccal, mid-lingual, mid-mesial, and mid-distal was higher than in the scannable method but it was not significant (P > 0.05). Also, the marginal discrepancy for canine abutment in the conventional method was higher than in the scannable method, but it was not significant, either (P > 0.05).
conclusionsFPDs fabricated from both scannable and conventional impression materials were not superior to each other in marginal fit for both central and canine abutments by evaluation using the replica technique.
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.