ArticleJournal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists2026
Seating accuracy of removable partial denture frameworks fabricated by different digital workflows in comparison to conventional workflow.
Article in Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy assessment of removable partial denture frameworks fabricated by selective laser melting using two different workflows: A cross-over clinical study.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Enhancing digital workflows for removable partial dentures: A novel diagnostic surveyor and designer.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026Article
- Digital Workflows in Prosthodontics.Australian dental journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the seating accuracy of removable partial denture (RPD) frameworks fabricated by two digital workflows involving selective laser melting (SLM) in comparison to the conventional workflow. MATERIALS AND
methodsA Kennedy class III modification 1 partially edentulous mandibular arch was used as a master model. Three RPD framework groups were included: (1) a conventional workflow group with conventional impression and casting (CC), (2) a partial digital workflow group with conventional impression and digital fabrication (CD), and (3) a complete digital workflow group with digital impression and digital fabrication (DD). A total of 10 frameworks were produced for each group. The marginal gaps at the occlusal rests, retention arms, and reciprocating arms were measured by a traveling microscope. The data were analyzed with the one-way analysis of variance test.
resultsAt the framework level, the most superior fit was observed for the CD group (79.5 µm) followed by DD (85.3 µm) and CC (114.2 µm) groups. The CD and DD groups were significantly superior to CC (p < 0.001). This fit pattern was consistent for the retention and reciprocating arms, while the occlusal rest fit was similar among all the groups.
conclusionsThe SLM frameworks had a promising seating accuracy in comparison to conventional frameworks. The type of impression, conventional or digital, did not affect the accuracy of SLM frameworks. The differences observed in the present study are likely to be of minimal clinical significance.
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.