ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2024
Clinical comparison of marginal fit of ceramic inlays between digital and conventional impressions.
Article in The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of digitally fabricated partial coverage ceramic restorations using conventional impression and intraoral scanners.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Marginal Fit of Chairside CAD/CAM Ceramic Inlays: An In Vitro SEM Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Influence of intraoral scanner type on the marginal fit of digitally fabricated lithium disilicate crowns.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Modern Light-Cured Restorative Composites as Luting Agents: The Effect of Preheating on Conversion and Film Thickness.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Trueness comparison of various intraoral scanners and hybrid workflow for ceramic restoration.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2025Article
- Micro-CT Evaluation of Marginal and Internal Fit of Lithium Disilicate Crowns - Influence of Wax-up and Manufacturing Technique : Marginal and Internal Fit of Lithium Disilicate Crowns.Galen medical journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this stuldy was to compare the clinical marginal fit of CAD-CAM inlays obtained from intraoral digital impression or addition silicone impression techniques. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study included 31 inlays for prosthodontics purposes of 31 patients: 15 based on intraoral digital impressions (DI group); and 16 based on a conventional impression technique (CI group). Inlays included occlusal and a non-occlusal surface. Inlays were milled in ceramic. The inlay-teeth interface was replicated by placing each inlay in its corresponding uncemented clinical preparation and taking interface impressions with silicone material from occlusal and free surfaces. Interface analysis was made using white light confocal microscopy (WLCM) (scanning area: 694 × 510 µm
resultsMarginal fit values for occlusal and free surfaces were affected by the type of impression. There were no differences between surfaces (occlusal vs. free). Gap obtained for DI group was 164 ± 84 µm and that for CI group was 209 ± 104 µm, and there were statistical differences between them (
conclusionDigital impression achieved inlays with higher clinical marginal fit and performed better than the conventional silicone materials.
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.