Trial reportBMC oral health2025
Accuracy assessment of removable partial denture frameworks fabricated by selective laser melting using two different workflows: A cross-over clinical study.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06412159 (Intra-oral Digital Evaluation of Fit Accuracy for Removable Partial Denture Frameworks Fabricated by Selective Laser Melting Using 2 Different Impression Techniques. Within Subjected Study), which is not on this 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.
Intra-oral Digital Evaluation of Fit Accuracy for Removable Partial Denture Frameworks Fabricated by Selective Laser Melting Using 2 Different Impression Techniques. Within Subjected Study
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the feasibility of intraoral scanning technology for removable partial dentures: ai-assisted measurement analysis and clinical investigation.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Non-dental open source software in comparison to dental software in construction of digitally designed partial dentures frameworks.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid advancements in computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) have opened new pathways in the fabrication of removable partial dentures (RPDs). Digital impression serves as the first step of CAD-CAM technique, which includes two methods for data acquisition: direct intraoral scanning or indirect extraoral scanning. RPD frameworks may be considered the definitive test of accuracy for a digital workflow. This cross-over clinical study aimed to evaluate the overall accuracy of various parts for mandibular metallic RPD frameworks made by selective laser melting (SLM) using fully-digital versus combined analog-digital workflows.
methodsThis study was carried out on 24 participants with mandibular Kennedy class I arches. Each participant received two RPDs frameworks, one fabricated using a combined analog-digital workflow (Group I) and the other using a fully- digital workflow (Group II). In Group I, the analog steps involved taking physical impressions and creating stone casts followed by scanning the casts with a laboratory scanner to create virtual casts. In Group II, a definitive scan STL file was created using an intraoral digital scanner. Both groups used 3Shape software for digital design of the RPD framework, ensuring consistency by using the same design, and subsequent fabrication using SLM. To evaluate the accuracy, STL data analysis was performed through intra-oral digital superimposition evaluation, a color map was assessed and overall accuracy and the misfit (distance between each framework component and the reference intra-oral scan STL file) were measured at rest, proximal plate, lingual plate and I-bar retentive clasp terminal areas. The Paired t-test was utilized for statistical analysis of the data.
resultsIn Group I: combined analog-digital workflow color map assessment revealed more gaps particularly in the lingual plate and proximal plate areas, whereas Group II: fully-digital workflow showed better accuracy. Regarding the overall accuracy in the rest, proximal plate, lingual plate, and I-bar clasp retentive terminal, Group II was significantly superior to Group I (P = 0.0125, 0.0019, < 0.001, < 0.001, and 0.0119, respectively).
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, both workflows resulted in frameworks with clinically acceptable accuracy. However, SLM RPD frameworks fabricated using the fully-digital workflow showed superior accuracy in key areas such as the rest, proximal plate, lingual plate, and I-bar clasp retentive terminal areas, when compared to the combined analog-digital workflow.
trial registrationRetrospectively registered (NCT06412159) 03/05/2024.
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.