ArticleBMC oral health2025
Effect of two-step mock-up methods on the trueness of complete-arch trial restorations: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the trueness of trial restorations fabricated using the two-step mock-up methods with varying distributions of hard tissue stop areas in the complete-arch mock-up process and to compare these outcomes with the one-step method.
methodsComplete-arch digital diagnostic waxings were designed on a worn maxillary cast. The original waxings were modified into four intermediate versions, each retaining a different set of original worn teeth: bilateral molars, molars and incisors, lateral incisors along with canines and molars, or alternating teeth. One complete-arch waxing cast, four intermediate waxing casts and 25 original worn casts were 3D printed, and silicone indices were prepared. Trial restorations were made by injecting bis-acrylic resin into the silicone indices and curing under pressure. Five groups were formed, one-step (Group 1) and four two-step methods (Groups 2-5). Root mean square (RMS) was applied for 3D analysis (global and tooth levels). Point-to-point measurements were used for 2D occlusal surfaces. One-way ANOVA with post-hoc tests was performed to assess intergroup differences.
resultsSignificant differences in overall trueness were found among the five groups (F (4,20) = 92.61, P < 0.001). Group 1 (one-step) showed the largest mean RMS deviation (0.31 ± 0.02 mm) while Group 5 (alternating teeth) had the smallest (0.15 ± 0.01 mm), not significantly different from Group 4 (0.17 ± 0.01 mm). Tooth-level 3D analyses revealed a similar pattern, with the largest deviations observed at premolars (0.34 ± 0.07 mm) and canines (0.60 ± 0.09 mm) in Group 1, both significantly greater than Groups 4 and 5 (< 0.17 mm, all P < 0.001). Occlusal surface 2D analyses showed statistically significant differences among groups (all P < 0.001), with Group 1 reaching 0.58 ± 0.12 mm at premolars compared with 0.16 ± 0.09 mm in Group 5.
conclusionsThe two-step methods enhance the trueness of complete-arch trial restorations compared to the one-step method, with increased supporting teeth reducing overall deviations.
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.