ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
An in vitro analysis of marginal and internal fit of 3D-printed permanent molar endocrowns with different preparation designs.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three-Dimensional Printed Materials for Definitive Ceramic and Resin Restorations: A Scoping Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Influence of printing orientation on the mechanical and surface characteristics of a novel 3D-printed definitive resin-based composite.Odontology · 2026Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of different preparation designs on the marginal and internal fit of 3D-printed permanent endocrowns. MATERIALS AND
methodsTypodont maxillary right first molars were prepared and divided into four groups based on different preparation designs: Group 1- butt joint with 2 mm pulp chamber depth, Group 2- butt joint with 4 mm depth, Group 3- shoulder with 2 mm depth, and Group 4- shoulder with 4 mm depth (n = 16 each). The prepared teeth were scanned and replicated as 3D-printed resin dies. Permanent endocrowns were fabricated using a ceramic-filled hybrid material and seated with light-body silicone. All restorations were rescanned, and superimposition was performed using 3D analysis software to evaluate marginal, internal, pulp chamber, and overall gaps based on multipoint measurements at standardized locations. Data were statistically analyzed using Two-Way Robust ANOVA (p < 0.05).
resultsNo significant differences were found between preparation types and depths for internal and overall gap values (p > 0.05). However, the highest marginal gap was measured in Group 1 (0.08 mm; p = 0.017), while the largest pulp chamber gap was recorded in Group 4 (0.15 mm; p < 0.001).
conclusionsA 1 mm shoulder preparation with a 2 mm pulp chamber depth demonstrated superior marginal and pulp chamber fit compared to other designs. While internal fit did not significantly vary among groups, this design showed the most consistent adaptation overall, supporting its clinical preference for 3D-printed permanent endocrowns. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Different preparation designs may affect the fit of endocrowns. Clinicians can prefer an endocrown preparation design of 1 mm shoulder preparation with a 2 mm pulp chamber to improve the adaptation of 3D-printed permanent endocrown restorations.
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.