ArticleBMC oral health2024
Comparative analysis of the fit quality of monolithic zirconia veneers produced through traditional and digital workflows using silicone replica technique: an in vitro study.
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 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.
- Marginal and internal fit of 3D printed permanent crowns: effect of CAD/CAM software, preparation type and resin material.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Accuracy of 3 Intraoral and 1 Extraoral Digital Scanning Systems for Multiple Laminate Veneer Preparations: An In Vitro Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Evaluation of biomechanical behavior of all-ceramic cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe success of a restoration largely depends on the quality of its fit. This study aimed to investigate the fit quality of monolithic zirconia veneers (MZVs) produced through traditional and digital workflows.
methodsA typodont maxillary right central incisor was prepared. The maxillary arch with the prepared tooth was scanned with Trios 3 Pod intra-oral scanner (IOS), which served as a pattern to create thirty 3D resin models through printing. Additionally, thirty conventional impressions of the maxillary with the prepared tooth were taken using polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression material. These impressions were cast using dental gypsum products to create thirty stone dies, which were then scanned externally. Sixty MZVs were milled from multi-layered zirconia disks. The marginal and internal gaps of restorations were assessed using the silicone replica technique.
resultsThe highest marginal accuracy for both the conventional and digital impression groups was observed in the cervical area, with values of 74.6 μm and 61.9 μm, respectively. The smallest internal gaps for both groups were also recorded in the cervical area, at 109.9 μm for the conventional group and 109.7 μm for the digital group. The digital group exhibited better marginal fit, particularly in the incisal and mesial areas (79.3 μm and 75.7 μm, respectively), compared to the conventional group (88.1 μm and 90.8 μm). No statistically significant differences in internal fit were observed.
conclusionMZVs fabricated using the digital workflow exhibited superior marginal fit compared to those fabricated using the conventional workflow, though both techniques yielded clinically acceptable results.
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.