Trial reportBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of the marginal gap and the three-dimensional trueness of suprastructures generated from scanning two different substructure framework materials for full arch implant-supported restorations.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06423482 (Digitization Accuracy and Scannability of Two Different Implant-Supported Prosthodontic Framework Materials), which is not on this 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.
Digitization Accuracy and Scannability of Two Different Implant-Supported Prosthodontic Framework Materials
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to assess and compare the influence of intraoral scanning of 2 different full-arch implant-supported frameworks on the marginal adaptation and the 3D trueness of the suprastructures generated from the scanned frameworks.
methodsTwo milled maxillary implant-supported frameworks were used in this study. The frameworks were manufactured from 2 different materials, Group I: titanium and Group II: Poly-Ether-Ether-Ketone (PEEK). A desktop scanner (Medit MD-1D0410, Medit Corp) was used to scan each framework once creating a reference scan, then the frameworks are tightened inside the patient mouth and an intraoral scanner (Medit i700; Medit Corp) was used to scan each framework 10 more times. From each intraoral scan, suprastructures were designed and 3D printed. The horizontal marginal gap between the finish line of the framework and the suprastructure for each group by using a stereomicroscope (SZ1145TR; Olympus). Every suprastructure in each group was assembled on the framework, tightened to the model, and scanned (n = 10) by using a desktop scanner. The suprastructures were scanned and compared with the reference file to evaluate 3D trueness through color-difference mapping by using a software program (The Medit link compare tool, Medit Design v3.0.6, Build 286; Medit Corp).
resultsRegarding the marginal gap, the titanium group had a significantly lower average marginal gap (70.99 ± 6.53) µm than the PEEK group (101.87 ± 21.51) (P = 0.0001). Regarding the 3D trueness of the 3D printed suprastructures, the titanium framework showed significantly less RMS value deviation from the reference scan (124.30 ± 23.39) µm than the PEEK framework (212.60 ± 54.76) µm (P < 0.001).
conclusionsIntraoral scans of titanium frameworks produced suprastructures with superior marginal adaptation and 3D trueness compared to PEEK frameworks. However, the average marginal gap in both frameworks was considered clinically acceptable.
trial registrationThis trial, number NCT06423482, is registered at Clinical.gov. Date of trial registration 21/05/2024”.
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.