ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Marginal adaptation analysis of CAD/CAM resin crown with non-invasive methods.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. 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.
- Clinical Performance and Retention of Partial Implant Restorations Cemented with Fuji PlusMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study compared the silicone replica method with swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) to analyze marginal adaptation and investigated the effect of the light incidence angle of SS-OCT on measurement precision. MATERIALS AND
methodsA typodont-prepared mandibular right first molar was scanned using an intraoral scanner (Trios 3). Fourteen crowns were fabricated from CAD/CAM resin blocks (Katana Avencia P) using a 5-axis milling machine (DWX-50). Marginal adaptation at the buccal, lingual, mesial, and distal points was assessed using the silicone replica method and SS-OCT at light incidence angles of 60°, 75°, and 90°. Statistical comparisons were performed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-tests with Bonferroni correction, and t-tests at a significance level of 0.05.
resultsAt 60°, SS-OCT showed significantly larger marginal discrepancies than the silicone replica method at the buccal, lingual, and mesial points (p < 0.05). At 75°, only the lingual point showed a significantly larger value than the silicone replica method (p < 0.05). At 90°, no significant differences were observed between the SS-OCT and silicone replica methods (p > 0.05). Marginal discrepancy values increased as the angle changed from 90° to 75° to 60°, with significant differences between 60° and 75° and between 60° and 90° at the buccal and lingual points (p < 0.05).
conclusionsSS-OCT is a viable alternative to the silicone replica method for assessing marginal adaptation at an incidence angle of 90 °. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: SS-OCT, a non-invasive method, has the potential to be applied clinically for evaluating marginal fit in indirect restorations in vivo.
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.