ArticlePloS one2024
Marginal fit of 3-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures: Influence of pattern fabrication method and repeated porcelain firings.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of finish line quality and axial surface location on marginal adaptation of selective laser melting fabricated copings.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
- Implant-cemented Co-Cr frameworks produced by hard and soft milling: The impact of porcelain firing cycles on microstructure and fit accuracy.European journal of oral sciences · 2025Article
- Marginal and Internal Adaptation of Implant-Supported Three-Unit Metal Frameworks Fabricated by the Conventional, Semi-Digital, and Fully Digital Techniques Before and After Porcelain Application.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
- Influence of repeated porcelain firing cycles on the microstructure, marginal and internal fit of implant-cemented Co-Cr frameworks.European journal of oral sciences · 2025Article
- Influence of various fabrication techniques and porcelain firing on the accuracy of metal-ceramic crowns.BMC oral health · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMarginal fit significantly impacts the long-term success of dental restorations. Different pattern fabrication methods, including hand-waxing, milling, or 3D printing, may affect restorations accuracy. The effect of porcelain firing cycles on the marginal fit of metal-ceramic restorations remains controversial, with conflicting findings across studies. PURPOSE: The aim was to evaluate the potential effects of multiple porcelain firings (3, 5, 7 cycles) as well as pattern fabrication method (conventional hand-waxing, milling, and 3D printing) on the marginal adaptation of 3-unit implant-supported metal-ceramic fixed partial dentures. It was hypothesized that neither the wax pattern fabrication method nor repeated ceramic firings would significantly affect the marginal adaptation of metal-ceramic crowns.
methodsIn this in-vitro study, 30 Cobalt-Chromium alloy frameworks were fabricated based on pattern made through three techniques: conventional hand-waxing, CAD-CAM milling, and CAD-CAM 3D printing (n = 10 per group). Sixteen locations were marked on each abutment to measure the vertical marginal gap at four stages: before porcelain veneering and after 3, 5, and 7 firing cycles. The vertical marginal gap was measured using direct microscopic technique at ×80 magnification. Mean vertical marginal gap values were calculated and two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests were used for inter-group comparisons (α = 0.05).
resultsThe 3D printing group showed significantly lower (P<0.001) mean vertical marginal gaps (60-76 μm) compared to the milling (77-115 μm) and conventional hand-waxing (102-110 μm) groups. The milling group exhibited a significant vertical gap increase after 3 firing cycles (P<0.001); while the conventional (P = 0.429) and 3D printing groups (P = 0.501) showed no significant changes after 7 firing cycles. Notably, the vertical marginal gap in all groups remained below the clinically acceptable threshold of 120 μm.
conclusionCAD-CAM 3D printing provided superior marginal fit compared to CAD-CAM milling and conventional hand-wax pattern fabrication methods. The impact of porcelain firing on the mean marginal gap was significant only in the milling group. All three fabrication techniques yielded clinically acceptable vertical marginal adaptation after repeated firings. Additive manufacturing holds promise to produce precise implant-supported prostheses.
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.