ArticleJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2026
Influence of Finish Line and CAM Unit on the Marginal Adaptation and Margin Trueness of Lithium Disilicate Glass-Ceramic and Composite Resin Onlay Restorations.
Article in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the marginal adaptation and margin trueness of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LDS) and glass-filler reinforced composite resin (CR) onlays fabricated using three different finish lines and two chairside CAM units (4- and 5-axis).
methodsLDS (e.max CAD) and CR (Tetric CAD) onlays were fabricated on butt joint, chamfer, and bevel finish lines using 4-axis (CEREC MC XL) and 5-axis (Programill One) chairside CAM units (N = 120). Onlays were scanned for margin trueness and marginal adaptation analyses. Data were analyzed with three-way ANOVA and Tukey B post hoc test (α = 0.05).
resultsA significant interaction was found among finish line, material, and CAM unit for marginal adaptation and margin trueness (p < 0.001). Bevel had the highest marginal adaptation; chamfer the lowest. Butt joint showed the highest margin trueness; bevel the lowest. CR onlays had better marginal adaptation than LDS with bevel finish lines, regardless of CAM unit. Overall, 5-axis CAM units yielded better margin trueness.
conclusionsFinish line design, restorative material, and CAM unit affected the marginal adaptation and margin trueness. The bevel finish line yielded the highest marginal adaptation and the chamfer the lowest, regardless of material or CAM unit. Conversely, the butt joint showed the highest margin trueness, and the bevel the lowest. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Finish line design, material type, and CAM unit selection may affect marginal adaptation and margin trueness of onlays. A bevel finish line may improve marginal adaptation, while a butt joint finish line may enhance margin trueness. Using a 5-axis CAM unit can improve trueness, particularly with bevel and chamfer finish lines and composite resin materials.
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.