ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2025
Fit accuracy of complete crowns fabricated by generative artificial intelligence design: a comparative clinical study.
Article in The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of the Accuracy of Crowns Designed Using Artificial Intelligence Versus CAD/CAM and Traditional Methods.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scans using full-scan and segmental-and-merge strategies.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2026Article
- Digital Recordings of Centric Relation Using Conventional and Digital Techniques: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Accuracy and Functional Performance of Artificial Intelligence-Based Automated Crown Design Systems: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Biomedical engineering and computational biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDesigning restorations remains challenging because the process is time-consuming and requires operator skill and experience. This clinical study evaluated the fit accuracy of polymerized complete crowns fabricated using a web-based 3D generative artificial intelligence design (GAID) method compared to crowns fabricated using a conventional computer-aided design (CCAD) method. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty-two patients requiring complete crowns in maxillary and mandibular premolars and molars were enrolled. After tooth preparation, digital impressions were taken using an intraoral scanner. Two crowns per patient were designed: one used a web-based automatic 3D GAID software program, and the other used a standard human-driven CCAD software program. The crowns were 3D-printed and delivered to the patients. Marginal and internal discrepancies and occlusal contacts were evaluated using a digital triple scan technique. Statistical analysis used two one-sided t-tests for paired samples to assess crown accuracy in both methods (α = .05).
resultsMarginal gaps of crowns made by both methods showed equivalence in the buccal, mesial, and distal regions; however, in the lingual region, the GAID method produced higher marginal discrepancies (
conclusionThe fit accuracy of crowns fabricated using generative artificial intelligence was equivalent to those produced using the manual-input computer design method when the margins were well defined. While marginal and occlusal discrepancies were within clinically acceptable range, careful attention must be given to automated design outcomes, considering various tooth preparation shapes, anatomical structures, and clinical variations.
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.