ArticleBMC oral health2025
Assessment of the trueness of the tissue surface for 3D-printed and injection-molded mandibular complete denture base fabrication.
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
backgroundAs digital methods are widely used in clinical dentistry, the accuracy of dental prostheses remains critical. However, how each step in both conventional and digital methods affects the accuracy of the overall area and each area of the tissue surface remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the effects of three-dimensional (3D) printing and injection molding processes on the trueness of mandibular complete denture bases.
methodsTen physical impressions were made using a standard edentulous lower jaw plaster model. In accordance with the scan data from these impressions, the denture bases were designed and fabricated using 3D printing. Additionally, conventional polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) denture bases were made from the same impressions via the injection molding method. The tissue surfaces were scanned and divided into four regions. Deviation analyses were performed using the root mean square (RMS) method. Two-way ANOVA was employed for statistical analyses.
resultsA significant difference in trueness was found between the two methods (p < 0.05). In the injection molding process, the largest deviation originated primarily from the plaster filling process (222.35 ± 11.77 μm), followed by wax-up fabrication (211.10 ± 55.25 μm) and resin injection (161.87 ± 59.95 μm). The deviation of the border seal area was the greatest among the regions. In the 3D printing process, the CAD design showed the greatest deviation (179.22 ± 55.13 μm). The maximum deviation was 219.83 ± 45.37 μm in the border seal area. The printing process was associated with a deviation of 138.10 ± 24.42 μm, with the maximum deviation in the retromolar pad area reaching 193.92 ± 28.13 μm.
conclusionsBoth methods demonstrated clinically acceptable tissue surface adaptation. The 3D-printed base better adapted to the integrated tissue surface, especially in the border seal area. However, owing to the significant differences observed in this study, further clinical validation is needed.
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.