ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of Non-dental open source software in comparison to dental software in construction of digitally designed partial dentures frameworks.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 aimed to compare removable partial denture frameworks digitally designed using a non-dental software and two dental software programs. Frameworks were designed using Blender (Group A), Exocad (Group B), 3Shape (Group C), and a conventional fabrication method (Group D) on maxillary casts (n = 12 each ). Adaptation, retention, and surface roughness of manufactured frameworks were evaluated using Geomagic Control X software, a universal testing machine, and optical profilometry, respectively. Regarding adaptation results, 3Shape group had the lowest RMS value (1.79 mm ± 0.13), whereas Blender group showed the highest RMS value (1.95 mm ± 0.17). For retention, 3Shape group had the highest values (11.21 N ± 0.07) while, Blender had the lowest retention (6.61 N ± 1.13). Retention and adaptation tests showed statistically significant difference using ANOVA test (P ≤ 0.05). Surface roughness evaluation revealed no statistically significant differences among the four groups (P > 0.05). In conclusion, RPD frameworks designed using dental software demonstrated superior adaptation and retention compared to those designed with non-dental software. Dental software also outperformed the conventional technique in retention. Conventional frameworks showed better retention than those produced using non-dental software. No differences in surface roughness were found among the four groups.
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.