ArticleScientific reports2025
Pilot clinical comparison of three occlusal splint fabrication techniques: A preliminary study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Artificial Aging and Its Impact on Surface Properties of Conventional and CAD-CAM Occlusal Splint Materials: An In Vitro Comparative Study.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
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
To compare laboratory production time, clinical adjustment time, and patient-reported comfort of three occlusal splint fabrication techniques (heat-cured acrylic, vacuum-adapted acrylic, and CAD-CAM 3D-printed splints) in a pilot feasibility study. Three participants each received three splints, one fabricated with each technique. Laboratory production time, chairside adjustment time, and comfort (VAS) were recorded. Vacuum-adapted splints required the shortest laboratory production time (mean = 92 min, SD = 25.35). Heat-cured splints required longer processing (mean = 114 min, SD = 6.08). The CAD-CAM splints showed the longest total workflow duration (mean = 133 min, SD = 6.08), although they required less manual technician work. Intraoral adjustment times were similar between heat-cured and vacuum-adapted splints (means = 28 min and 26.66 min, respectively). None of the CAD-CAM splints seated fully at delivery, preventing proper adjustment. Vacuum-adapted splints received the highest comfort scores. Within the limitations of this pilot study with three participants, vacuum-adapted and heat-cured splints showed clinically acceptable performance and comparable adjustment times. CAD-CAM splints reduced manual workload but suffered from significant seating and fit issues, indicating the need for workflow refinement before clinical implementation. Even as splint fabrication is moving towards a more digital workflow, the old methods, especially vacuum-adapted splints, continue to deliver timely and comfortable results to patients. Further studies with more participants need to be done so that there can be a clear digital splint fabrication workflow.
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.