ArticleHeliyon2024
Influence of impression method and shoulder design on the marginal adaptation of CAD/CAM nanoceramic resin onlay restorations.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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.
- Marginal adaptation of 3D-printed crowns: influence of preparation geometry and digitization workflow.BMC oral health · 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
- Trueness and precision analysis of crown margins on digital casts produced by various dental scanning systems.Journal of dental sciences · 2025Article
- Effects of postcuring times on the trueness of 3D -printed dental inlays made with permanent resins.Clinical oral investigations · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This in-vitro study investigates the influence of two different impression techniques and two shoulder designs on the marginal adaptation of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing restorations. Methods: Forty mandibular first premolars were cast into dental arch models for this in vitro study. Fragile cusps and concavities on the mesial-buccal-occlusal surfaces were treated, with 2 mm of the occlusal surface removed. Teeth were categorised into two groups based on shoulder preparation. Digital scanning using a 3Shape 3D scanner identified them further for allocation into conventional and digital impression subgroups. The restorations were created from nanoceramic resin blocks using prescribed guidelines. Microscopic evaluation assessed the restoration's marginal adaptation, with data analysed using SPSS 27.0. The level of significance was set at Results: Digital intraoral scanning consistently demonstrated smaller marginal gaps than the traditional impression method, regardless of shoulder preparation, with the differences being statistically significant ( Conclusions: The onlay preparation design with a shoulder led to restorations with improved marginal adaptation compared with the design with no shoulder. Direct digital impression techniques produced restorations within a better marginal discrepancy than traditional impressions.
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.