ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2025
Comparative Analysis of CAD-CAM Workflow Variations on the Marginal and Internal Gaps and Fatigue Behavior of Ceramic and Resin Composite Dental Crowns.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiscale Design of Dental Restorative Materials: Mechanistic Foundations, Technological Innovations, and Clinical Translation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Morphological comparison between artificial intelligence-driven and manual CAD design in single tooth restoration: a preliminary 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo analyze the marginal/internal gap and the fatigue behavior of crowns made of two different materials, using four combinations of a digital workflow-two intraoral scanners (IOSs) and two milling machines. MATERIALS AND
methodsCrowns were made considering three factors: IOS (a confocal microscopy-based scanner: TRIOS 3-TR; or a combination of active triangulation and dynamic confocal microscopy: Primescan-PS), milling machines (four-axis: CEREC MC XL-CR or five-axis: PrograMill PM7-PM), and restorative material (lithium disilicate-LD or resin composite-RC) ( STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: For data analysis, three-way analysis of variance and Kaplan-Meier with log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test were performed (α = 0.05).
resultsTR resulted in a smaller axial-occlusal angle and occlusal gap, and five-axis milling resulted in a smaller marginal gap, axial-occlusal angle, and occlusal gap. Angled points and occlusal surface showed a tendency for overmilling. RC crowns displayed higher survival rates and a more pronounced topography compared with LD independently of the scanning and milling method. LD crowns produced with a five-axis milling machine resulted in higher fatigue performance and rougher topography compared with a four-axis machine.
conclusionRC crowns displayed better fatigue behavior compared with LD, while LD benefited from a five-axis machine for improved survival probability.
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.