ArticleBMC oral health2024
Interface misfit of conventionally milled and novel hybrid full-arch implant-supported titanium frameworks.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cumulative Error in Digital Workflows for Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation: A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Slot fidelity and ligation-dependent tribology in personalized brackets made by casting versus selective laser melting: an in vitro study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectiveA hybrid manufacturing technique that combines selective laser melting (SLM) and computer numerical control (CNC) has been developed for the fabrication of implant-platform/framework interfaces (PFIs) for mandibular and maxillary full-arch implant-supported titanium frameworks. The aim of this study was to compare the discrepancies in specimens fabricated using the hybrid technique (termed SLM/m hereafter) with those in specimens fabricated by conventional CNC milling. MATERIALS AND
methodsBased on a mandibular four-PFI CAD model and a maxillary six-PFI CAD model, four groups of titanium frameworks (eight per group, totaling 32) were fabricated according to the fabrication technique (SLM/m or milling) and number of PFIs (four or six). The frameworks were scanned by a structured light scanner and aligned with the CAD model in Geomagic Control X. Discrepancy was defined as the difference between the PFIs of the scanned framework and those of the CAD model. Discrepancies were measured and evaluated by multilevel analysis using a mixed-effects model (α = 0.05), followed by independent samples t-tests (α = 0.0125). Furthermore, the manufacturing times and raw-material costs were recorded and compared.
resultsThe maximum discrepancy values for the four-PFI and six-PFI hybrid frameworks were 52.2 and 64.3 μm, respectively. Multilevel analysis revealed that the fabrication technique and the number of PFIs had no significant effect on the discrepancy value. However, a significant interaction between the two factors was observed (P = 0.020). The discrepancies for the four-PFI hybrid frameworks were significantly lower than those for the four-PFI milled frameworks (P = 0.001). No significant difference in discrepancies between the six-PFI hybrid frameworks and six-PFI milled frameworks was observed (P = 0.697). Furthermore, the hybrid frameworks required only 11% of the raw materials and 25% of the milling time required for the conventionally milled frameworks.
conclusionSLM/m hybrid frameworks are viable, accurate alternatives to CNC-milled frameworks, with the added benefit of substantial cost reduction.
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.