ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
In Vitro Comparison of Internal and Marginal Adaptation between Printed and Milled Onlays.
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 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of manufacturing technique on marginal gap in inlay, onlay, veneer, and endocrown restorations: a systematic review and metaanalysis.European oral research · 2026Pooled it
- 3D-printing for zirconia abutment manufacturing and screw access hole effect: fatigue behavior of milled zirconia simplified restorations.Odontology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the marginal and internal fit of endocrown restorations fabricated by the CAD/CAM system using additive manufacturing technique.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Four-Year Outcomes of Anterior Pressed Lithium Disilicate Veneers Fabricated from 3D-Printed Burn-Out Patterns: A Clinical Case Report.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Advances in Digital Restorative Dentistry: Evaluation of Clinical Outcome Parameters of CAD/CAM and 3D-Printed Inlays, Onlays, and Veneers-Scoping Review.International journal of dentistry · 2026Review
- Wear of interim resin materials manufactured by 3D printing and CAD/CAM milling following chewing simulation.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Comparison of the Internal and Marginal Adaptation of Implant-Supported Restorations on Titanium Base Using Various Materials: An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Dimensional accuracy of additive and subtractive manufactured ceramic-reinforced hybrid composite inlays: a CBCT-based in vitro study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
- 3D Printed Materials for Permanent Restorations in Indirect Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry: A Critical Review of the Literature.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
statement of problemNowadays, milling is still the gold standard for fabricating indirect restorations, but to overcome its disadvantages, there are alternatives, such as 3D printing. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the gaps between the prepared tooth and milled and printed onlays fabricated with the same CAD design. It also aimed to determine the gap reproducibility across onlays fabricated by 3D printing and milling.
methodsA resin tooth was prepared for an onlay. After scanning the preparation, an onlay was designed with proprietary dental software. Next, 22 onlays were milled in a graphene-reinforced PMMA disc (Group 1), and 22 onlays were 3D-printed with a hybrid composite material (Group 2). After that, all fabricated restorations were scanned and superimposed on the scanned prepared resin tooth. Subsequently, a specific software was used to measure the margin, central, and intaglio-located gap between the milled or printed restoration and the preparation. Finally, measurements were compared with a multifactor analysis of variance.
resultsThe results demonstrated that printed onlays (Group 2) adapted better to the prepared tooth than the milled ones (Group 1) (
conclusionThis study concluded that the printed onlays adapted significantly better to the prepared tooth than the milled onlays. Printed onlays also showed significantly better gap reproducibility.
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.