ArticleBMC oral health2025
Digital assessment of biological material loss in teeth following preparation by dentists of varying experience levels.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study examined how different levels of clinical experience affect the amount of dental material removed during tooth preparation. It used a digital volumetric method to measure deviations from the ideal preparation objectively.
methodsA master model with typodont teeth (#46) was used to create 40 samples divided into four groups (n=10) based on operator experience: Group 1 included fourth-year undergraduates; Group 2, fifth-year undergraduates; Group 3, PhD students in Prosthodontics; and Group 4, prosthodontic specialists with over five years of practice. Standardized full crown preparations were performed on phantom heads, and 3D scans were obtained with an intraoral scanner. Volumetric deviations from the ideal were analyzed with VRMesh Studio, focusing on buccal, distal, mesial, occlusal, and palatal surfaces. Data involved Kruskal-Wallis, ANOVA tests, and comparisons of preparation durations among groups.
resultsThe results showed significant differences in material loss on the occlusal surface, especially in Group 2 (-0.575 ± 0.83 mm³, p < 0.05), compared to buccal (-0.126 ± 0.42 mm³) and lingual (-0.2 ± 0.39 mm³) surfaces. Preparation times varied significantly between the most experienced (Group 4: 7.99 ± 1.41 min) and least experienced (Group 1: 45.44 ± 10.47 min) (p < 0.05). All groups showed excessive reduction compared to the master model.
conclusionsThe level of education affected the amount of tooth structure removed and preparation time. Less experienced students, though slower, produced outcomes closer to ideal, highlighting the importance of precision-focused training in prosthodontics.
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.