Trial reportBMC oral health2025
Patient satisfaction with conventional versus fully digital obturators fabricated with 3D printing: a randomized crossover trial.
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. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence concerning the performance of entirely 3D printed digital obturators is insufficient. This prospective randomized, single-blind crossover study aimed to evaluate patient satisfaction with conventional obturators and 3D printed obturators.
methodsTen patients aged between 45 and 65 years with unilateral hemi-maxillectomy due to oncological surgeries were enrolled in a crossover design. Initial treatment involved a conventional obturator with a heat-cured acrylic base and a cast metal framework GI. Following a two-week washout, patients received a fully digitally designed and fabricated obturator incorporating 3D printed materials GII. Satisfaction was assessed using the validated Obturator Functioning Scale (OFS), and statistical analysis was conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsThe median of OFS scores of the two groups were statistically significant differences between the two studied groups in terms of functional and aesthetic limitations, with p-values 0.010* and 0.014* respectively. On the other hand, there were no significant differences in chewing limitation and social disability, with p-values of 0.572 and 0.087 respectively.
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, a full digital workflow for producing maxillary obturator prostheses can increase patient satisfaction with respect to functional, aesthetic, and phonetic outcomes.
trial registrationThis research was registered on www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov in 17-06-2023 with registration number NCT0592081.
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.