ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Trueness and Internal Fit of 3D Printed Provisional Veneers: An In Vitro Comparative Study.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
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
Dentistry is steadily evolving along the digital pathway at a constant and sure pace. Intraoral scanners (IOSs) started to enhance the precision and trueness of the restorations, making prosthodontics treatment more predictable. The objective of this study was to compare the trueness and internal fit of the printed provisional veneers for 60 preparations with three different types of finish lines. The abutments were scanned with the same intraoral scanner, and the resulting meshes were overlapped and analyzed in metrology software. The comparison was executed using two methods: (1) CAD (computer-aided design) designs vs. scanned veneers and (2) inverted surfaces of the preparations vs. scanned veneers. The butt joint preparation had the best trueness out of the three groups of preparation during both comparison methods, although there was no statistically significant difference between the butt joint and feather edge groups in the CAD design vs. scanned veneers analysis. Also, there was no statistically significant difference between palatal chamfer and feather edge groups in the scanned veneers vs. inverted surfaces of the preparations analysis.
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.