ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Evaluation of Marginal and Internal Fit of Ceramic Laminate Veneers Fabricated with Five Intraoral Scanners and Indirect Digitization.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Marginal and internal fit and fracture resistance of lithium disilicate laminate veneers for teeth with proximal cavities: an in-vitro comparative study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Accuracy of 3 Intraoral and 1 Extraoral Digital Scanning Systems for Multiple Laminate Veneer Preparations: An In Vitro Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Comparison of the Marginal Integrity of Sectional Non-Invasive Laminate Veneers Versus Sectional Minimally Invasive Laminate Veneers Under Artificial Aging.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Accuracy of Digital Impressions for Veneer Restorations: A Narrative Review and Case Illustration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of the fit quality of monolithic zirconia veneers produced through traditional and digital workflows using silicone replica technique: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- A Comparison of Internal, Marginal, and Incisal Gaps in Zirconia Laminates Fabricated Using Subtractive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Methods.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Marginal Discrepancy and Internal Fit of 3D-Printed Versus Milled Laminate Veneers: An In Vitro Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the ceramic laminate veneer-tooth interface after different resin cement excess removal techniques.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- AnJournal of Indian Prosthodontic SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The long-term success of ceramic laminate veneers (CLVs) is influenced by the marginal and internal fit of the restorations. However, studies comparing the fit of CLVs using different intraoral scanners or the indirect digitization technique are lacking. The purpose of this study was therefore to assess the marginal and internal fit of CAD/CAM-milled CLVs using different intraoral scanners and the indirect digitalization technique. An ivorine typodont maxillary left-central incisor was prepared; the tooth and the neighboring teeth were scanned and used as a template to print ninety 3D partial models. Thereafter, ceramic laminate veneers (CLVs) (N = 90) were milled from IPS-Emax CAD blocks and divided into six equal groups (15 specimens each) according to the type of intraoral scanner (IOS), as follows: Omnicam IOS, SC3600 IOS, Trios 3 IOS, Emerald IOS, I500 IOS. Fifteen further CLVs were fabricated using the conventional indirect digitalization technique. After cementation on the resin dies and embedding in clear epoxy resin, specimens were sectioned inciso-gingivally and mesio-distally. At the incisal and cervical positions, the marginal discrepancy was measured and evaluated in addition to the internal gap at six locations using SEM (200×). Differences between gap measurements among the six groups were determined using ANOVA. Games-Howell multiple comparisons for homogenous variances and LSD multiple comparisons for non-homogenous variances were used with 95% confidence intervals. The significance level was set at 0.05. The lowest mean absolute marginal gap at the incisal margins (AMGI) was recorded for Omnicam group (203.28 ± 80.14) µm, while the highest mean absolute marginal gap at the cervical margins (AMGC) was recorded for Omnicam group (147.16 ± 59.78) µm. The mean AMGC was reported to be significantly different between the conventional technique (146.75 ± 38.43) µm and Trios 3 (91.86 ± (35.51) µm;
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.