ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Clinical evaluation of computer-aided design and three-dimensional printing for completely edentulous mandibular custom tray fabrication: assessing clinician satisfaction.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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.
- Comparison of tensile bond strengths of different impression materials used with custom trays fabricated by 3D printing.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Digital era in oral rehabilitation: a scoping review of trends and implications for clinical practice.Brazilian oral research · 2026Article
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
This study evaluates prosthodontists' satisfaction and efficiency of custom tray fabrication methods in completely edentulous mandibular jaw patients. A digital workflow was established, incorporating 3D scanning for preliminary impressions, CAD for designing border extensions and ensuring uniform 3D space, and 3D printing for tray fabrication. Three methods were compared: CAD/3D printing, light-cured resin, and impression compound trimming. Prosthodontist satisfaction was assessed using a visual analog scale, and manual fabrication time was analyzed. Dislocation tests were performed to evaluate tray retention. The CAD/3D printing method achieved the highest satisfaction across most parameters (
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.