ArticleBMC oral health2023
Accuracy of fit for cobaltchromium bar over two implants fabricated with different manufacturing techniques: an in-vitro study.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Internal fit of cobalt-chromium and zirconia implant abutments fabricated using different techniques: a micro-computed tomography study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2026Article
- Slot fidelity and ligation-dependent tribology in personalized brackets made by casting versus selective laser melting: an in vitro study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Fit analysis of implant-supported Co-Cr bars fabricated using casting, selective laser sintering, soft and dense milling techniques.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Microgap Size and Microbial Microleakage at the Implant Fixture-Abutment Interface in Original and Compatible Abutments.BioMed research international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of the invitro research was to compare the fit of Cobalt Chromium customized bar fabricated with different manufacturing processes cast metal bar, milled bar and 3D printed bar using scanning electron microscope. MATERIALS AND
methodsClear epoxy resin molds were prepared. In each mold two parallel implants with a 14 mm distance from each other were embedded. Thirty Co-Cr custom bars were constructed and were divided equally into three groups: Group (I) (Co-Cr conv), group (II) milled bar (Co-Cr milled), and group (III) printed bar (Co-Cr print). The marginal fit at implant-abutment interface was scanned using scanning electron microscope (SEM).
resultsThere was a significant difference between the three studied groups regarding marginal misfit the between implant and fabricated bars with p-value < 0.001. The highest value of micro-gap distance was found in Co-Cr conventional group (7.95 ± 2.21 μm) followed by Co-Cr 3D printed group (4.98 ± 1.73) and the lower value were found in Co-Cr milled (3.22 ± 0.75).
conclusionThe marginal fit of milled, 3D printed and conventional cast for Co-Cr alloy were within the clinically acceptable range of misfit. CAD/CAM milled Co-Cr bar revealed a superior internal fit at the implant-abutment interface. This was followed by selective laser melting (SLM) 3D printed bar and the least fit was shown for customized bar with the conventional lost wax 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.