ArticleOdontology2026
Overall fit of anterior and posterior single crown substructures fabricated with different additive manufacturing and conventional techniques.
Article in Odontology, 2026. 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
Abstract
Marginal and internal fit of single crowns is critical for clinical success. Further research is necessary to investigate the effects of various conventional and additive/subtractive manufacturing techniques on restoration fit, particularly for different tooth types. This in vitro study compared the fit of anterior and posterior crown substructures fabricated using five techniques: milled wax patterns for casting (CAW), 3D-printed polymer patterns for casting (3DP), direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), selective laser melting (SLM), and manual wax carving (Cast). The maxillary lateral and first molar teeth were prepared on a polyamide model, and substructures were designed after scanning. Cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) specimens were fabricated for each technique (n = 10). Discrepancies were measured using the silicone replica technique and analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni tests (α = .05). The 3DP group exhibited the highest overall discrepancies, while DMLS had the highest for molars, and DMLS, Cast, and SLM had the highest for laterals, respectively (p < 0.05). Tooth type significantly affected chamfer (p = 0.023, partial η
Indexed as
Identifiers
40858852What 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.