ArticleBMC oral health2025
Marginal and internal fit accuracy of single-crown restorations: the impact of digital and conventional impression techniques.
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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of the Accuracy of Crowns Designed Using Artificial Intelligence Versus CAD/CAM and Traditional Methods.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Marginal adaptation of 3D-printed crowns: influence of preparation geometry and digitization workflow.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effect of Support Spacing on the Region-Specific Dimensional Accuracy of 3D-Printed Dental Models.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Marginal and internal fit of 3D printed permanent crowns: effect of CAD/CAM software, preparation type and resin material.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Accuracy of digitally fabricated partial coverage ceramic restorations using conventional impression and intraoral scanners.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Marginal fit, internal adaptation, and thermocycling effects on the mechanical and optical properties of graphene CAD-CAM and zirconia crowns for primary molars: An in-vitro study.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
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
backgroundIn this study, we aimed to compare the marginal and internal fit of single-crown restorations fabricated using digital and conventional impression techniques, and to evaluate the potential advantages of digital impressions over conventional polyvinyl siloxane-based methods. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 120 extracted maxillary first molars were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 60 each): the conventional impression group (polyvinyl siloxane) and the digital impression group (TRIOS 3 intraoral scanner, 3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark). Standardized tooth preparations and CAD/CAM fabrication (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein) were performed for all samples. Marginal and internal fit were assessed using both the silicone replica technique and micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Measurements were analyzed using independent samples t-tests. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
resultsThe digital impression group demonstrated significantly smaller marginal and internal gaps compared to the conventional group in both evaluation methods. In silicone replica analysis, marginal gaps were 45.8 ± 6.7 μm (digital) and 61.3 ± 7.5 μm (conventional) (p < 0.001); internal gaps were 84.5 ± 10.8 μm (digital) and 102.7 ± 12.1 μm (conventional) (p < 0.001). Micro-CT analysis confirmed these findings with marginal gaps of 43.2 ± 5.9 μm (digital) and 59.8 ± 6.4 μm (conventional) (p < 0.001), and internal gaps of 81.3 ± 9.6 μm (digital) and 98.4 ± 11.3 μm (conventional) (p < 0.001). Intraobserver and interobserver ICC values exceeded 0.95, indicating excellent measurement reliability.
conclusionsDigital impression techniques provided significantly superior marginal and internal adaptation compared to conventional polyvinyl siloxane-based impressions for single-crown restorations. The improved accuracy, combined with workflow efficiency and patient comfort, supports the clinical adoption of digital impression systems.
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.