ArticleScientific reports2025
Dimensional accuracy of additive and subtractive manufactured ceramic-reinforced hybrid composite inlays: a CBCT-based in vitro study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effect of manufacturing technique on marginal gap in inlay, onlay, veneer, and endocrown restorations: a systematic review and metaanalysis.European oral research · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Influence of printing orientation on the mechanical and surface characteristics of a novel 3D-printed definitive resin-based composite.Odontology · 2026Article
- Mechanical behavior of tooth-class II restoration complex with various restorative materials using linear and non-linear finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Marginal and internal adaptation and absolute marginal discrepancy of 3D-printed, milled, and prefabricated crowns for primary molar teeth: an in vitro comparative study.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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The dimensional accuracy of digitally processed inlays is often questioned because of inherent manufacturing inconsistencies associated with computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM). This study aimed to compare the absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD), marginal gap (MG), internal gap (IG), and overall discrepancy (OD) of three-dimensional (3D) printed, milled and conventional inlays. Forty resin dies were 3D-printed from a class II mesiococclusodistal preparation on a typodont and randomly distributed into four groups of 10 each. Optical impressions were taken for three groups to fabricate CAD/CAM inlays: Group PVC, 3D printed VarseoSmile Crownplus; Group PVT, 3D printed VarseoSmile TriniQ; and Group MVE, milled using Vita Enamic. For Group CGP (control), CGP was conventionally fabricated using Gradia Plus. These inlays were stabilized on dies and subjected to cone‒beam computed tomography to measure discrepancies in mesiodistal and buccolingual sectional images. All the discrepancies differed significantly among the groups (one-way ANOVA, P > 0.05). The mean OD was significantly greater in the MVE than in the PVT and CGP; the mean AMD and MG were significantly greater in the PVC than in the PVT (Tukey test, P > 0.05). Compared with the other groups, the 3D-printed inlays, especially the VarseoSmile TriniQ, presented a closer marginal and internal fit.
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.