ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2025
Fit analysis of implant-supported Co-Cr bars fabricated using casting, selective laser sintering, soft and dense milling techniques.
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. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis MATERIALS AND
methodsA mandibular model with four dental implants (Nobel Replace Conical Connection, 3.5 mm × 11.5 mm) was fabricated using photoelastic resin. Sixteen Co-Cr implant-supported bars were produced using four CAM techniques: casting milled wax (CMW), selective laser sintering (SLS), dense milling (DM), and soft milling (SM) (n = 4). Fit was assessed through photoelastic stress analysis and digital scanning with a topographic digitizer (BreuckmannSmartScan). A standardized coordinate system was used for fit analysis. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, with Dunn-Bonferroni for multiple comparisons (α = .05).
resultsPhotoelastic analysis showed that bars fabricated with DM exhibited the lowest stress levels, while SM showed moderate stress. Fit was significantly influenced by Δy-z, Δd
conclusionIn conclusion, full-arch implant supported Co-Cr bars fabricated using the different CAM techniques exhibited clinically acceptable passive fit.
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.