ArticleBMC oral health2025
In-vitro comparison of the marginal and internal fit of 3D-printed crown restorations produced using different intraoral scanners and resin types: A Micro-CT analysis.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Three-Dimensional Printed Materials for Definitive Ceramic and Resin Restorations: A Scoping Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Marginal and internal fit of 3D printed permanent crowns: effect of CAD/CAM software, preparation type and resin material.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Direct Restorative Closure of Maxillary Midline Diastema Using a 3D-Printed Matrix: A Case Report.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
- Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe adaptation of crown restorations is critically influenced by marginal and internal fit, which may be affected by the digital workflow. With the increasing use of intraoral scanners and 3D-printed materials in restorative dentistry, evaluating how different scanner technologies and resin types influence restoration accuracy is essential. This in vitro study aimed to compare the marginal and internal fit of 3D-printed crown restorations fabricated using various intraoral scanners and resins, assessed via micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). The null hypothesis was that neither scanner nor resin type would significantly affect the fit.
methodsA standard preparation was performed on an upper first premolar model, which was scanned using three different intraoral scanners (Trios 5, Medit i600, and Primescan). The datasets were used to fabricate restorations with either Saremco CrownTec or VarseoSmile Crown Plus resin using DLP 3D printing. A total of six experimental groups were evaluated, with n = 5 specimens per group (total N = 30). The restorations were seated on corresponding resin models and scanned in axial, coronal, and sagittal planes using micro-CT. Measurements were taken from standardized reference points. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc tests.
resultsBoth scanner and resin type, as well as their interaction, resulted in statistically significant differences in marginal and internal fit in specific regions (p < 0.05). The Primescan + VarseoSmile group exhibited the lowest mean gap (0.06 ± 0.02 mm), while the Trios + Saremco group showed the highest (0.12 ± 0.04 mm).
conclusionsThe type of intraoral scanner and the resin's material properties significantly influence the fit of 3D-printed restorations. Particularly in marginal and axial areas, scanner-resin compatibility appears to be a critical factor for clinical success.
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.