ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Fit accuracy assessment of removable partial denture frameworks produced by direct metal laser sintering - a clinical trial.
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 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.
- Optimization of Bond Strength Between Heat-Polymerized PMMA and Contemporary CAD/CAM Framework Materials: A Comparative In Vitro Study.Polymers · 2025Article
- Chairside digital workflow to obtain an optimized 3D model of a partially edentulous mandible.Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this cross-over clinical study was to compare the number of framework repetitions, percentage of framework components adjusted, clinical acceptability, and fit accuracy of removable partial denture frameworks produced by the direct metal laser sintering technique (DMLS) and conventional technique. MATERIALS AND
methodsFor each dental arch (n = 26), two cobalt-chromium frameworks were produced through two protocols: direct metal laser sintering (experimental group) and conventional lost-wax casting technique (control group). The number of framework repetitions, the percentage of components that had to be adjusted, and the clinical acceptability were registered. The fit accuracy of functional components was assessed by a qualitative method using endodontic files to identify maladjustments and compared to a quantitative method based on silicone specimens digitized by micro-computed tomography. The normality was checked (Shapiro-Wilk test), and data were analyzed with McNemar, Wilcoxon and paired-t tests (α = 0.05).
resultsNo statistically significant differences were found between conventional and digital frameworks for most of the variables tested (p > 0.05) except the fewer laboratory repetitions (p = 0.046), higher percentage of components adjusted (p = 0.011), and better reciprocal arms fit (p = 0.044) in the frameworks produced by DMLS protocol. No statistically significant (p = 0.174) difference was found between the fit accuracy qualitative and quantitative assessment methods.
conclusionsThe DMLS and conventional protocols were similar. Despite the DMLS protocol exhibiting a higher percentage of components adjusted, it presented better reciprocal arms fit accuracy with no framework repetition. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Metal frameworks can be produced using DMLS eliminating casting problems.
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.