ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance in Implant-Supported Provisional Crowns Fabricated by Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing, Three-Dimensional Printing, and Conventional Self-Curing.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Fracture resistance of direct versus CAD-CAM PMMA provisional restorations: AnBioinformation · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim and objectives This study aimed to assess the influence of three fabrication techniques, computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) milling, three-dimensional (3D) printing, and conventional self-curing, on the fracture resistance of implant-supported polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) resin-based provisional crowns. Methods An in vitro comparative study was conducted using 45 implant analogs with straight titanium abutments, equally distributed into three groups. Each analog was embedded vertically in custom acrylic resin blocks (20 × 20 × 20 mm). Abutments were torqued to 25 Ncm, and screw access channels were sealed with Teflon pellets and composite resin. Provisional crowns were fabricated using CAD-CAM milling, 3D printing, and conventional self-curing methods. All crowns were cemented and subjected to axial loading in a universal testing machine until fracture. Fracture resistance values were recorded and statistically analyzed. Results Crowns made with 3D printing showed the greatest average resistance to fracture, followed by CAD-CAM milling, and the crowns fabricated using the conventional self-curing method had the lowest fracture resistance. Statistical tests confirmed that these differences between the three groups were significant (p <0.05). The stronger performance of the 3D-printed crowns points to better overall durability, suggesting they could be especially useful for implant-supported provisional restorations in clinical practice. Conclusion Taking into account the limitations of this laboratory study, 3D-printed PMMA crowns showed the highest fracture resistance compared to the other fabrication methods tested. Crowns made by CAD-CAM milling also had strength levels that are acceptable for clinical use, making them a good alternative option. On the other hand, crowns produced with conventional self-curing methods were the least resistant to fracture, which means they might only be suitable for situations where the load is minimal. Ultimately, the choice of fabrication technique should be based on specific clinical requirements, material properties, and cost considerations.
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.