Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39917685›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2024

3D-printed resin composite posterior fixed dental prosthesis: a prospective clinical trial up to 1 year.

Paniz Hobbi, Tugce Merve Ordueri, Funda Öztürk-Bozkurt, Tugba Toz-Akalın, Muzaffer Ateş, Mutlu Özcan

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04600297 (Clinical Evaluation of 3D Printed Resin Composite Posterior Fixed Dental Prosthesis), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04600297 naunknown statusnot on this map

Clinical Evaluation of 3D Printed Resin Composite Posterior Fixed Dental Prosthesis: A Prospective Clinical Trial up to 3 Years

TypeinterventionalSponsorIstanbul Medipol University HospitalRan2020 to 2024Enrolled70ConditionsComposite Resins, Dental ProsthesisArmsELS Even Stronger (3D Printed Resin Composite)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Advances in Dental Restorations: A Comprehensive Review of Machinable and 3D-Printed Ceramic-Reinforced Composites.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Paniz HobbiDepartment of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Tugce Merve OrdueriDepartment of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Funda Öztürk-BozkurtDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Tugba Toz-AkalınDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Muzaffer AteşDepartment of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Mutlu ÖzcanClinic for Masticatory Disorders and Dental Biomaterials, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: This clinical trial evaluated the clinical behavior of 3D-printed posterior resin composite fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Materials and methods: Between 10 October 2020 and 5 August 2022, 49 patients aged 19-60 years (16 men, 33 women) received 68 3D-printed resin composite 3-unit posterior FDPs (ELS Even Stronger, Saremco, Switzerland). FDPs were followed up 2 weeks after placement (baseline), 6 months after placement, and 1 year after placement by two independent calibrated observers using modified FDI criteria for anatomical form, secondary caries, marginal adaptation, surface roughness, color match, fracture of material, staining surface, staining margin, approximate anatomical form, retention, gingival health, and patient's view. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier analyses. Results: A total of 59 restorations were evaluated and the mean observation period was 8.63 months. Failure types were categorized as mechanical and biological. Failures were observed in 14 FDPs. Nine FDPs showed mechanical failure and five FDPs showed biological failure. Mechanical failures were mostly experienced as connector fractures. Eight FDPs showed cohesive fractures (seven in a single connector at either at the mesial or distal and one in the pontic itself). Biological failures, including root canal treatment and gingival tissue reactions, were observed within the first 6 months. Based on mechanical failures, the survival rate was 86.7% including the biological complications; this corresponded to 71.6% (Kaplan-Meier). After 1 year, two FDPs showed surface luster loss (score 4), two-color mismatches (score 4), and two-surface staining (score 4). Conclusion: 3D-printed resin composite FDPs were observed acceptable after 1 year of clinical follow-up, providing that the experienced failure types were mainly associated with fractures in the connector region, which requires revision of design parameters. Clinical Trial Registration: Clinical Trials.Gov, NCT04600297.

Indexed as

3D-printed restorationsclinical trialcomposite 3-unit posterior FDPsdental materialspermanent restorationsprosthodonticsrestorative materialssurvival

Identifiers

PMID39917685
PMCPMC11797829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.