ArticlePloS one2026
Evaluation of the marginal and internal gaps in 3D-printed interim crowns using different finish line detection methods: An in vitro study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the Dentbird crown software in automatically detecting the finish line for interim crowns. MATERIALS AND
methodsA mandibular first molar typodont model with a chamfer finish line was prepared and scanned ten times, resulting in ten STL files. The finish line for each file was detected using both automatic and semi-automatic methods in two software programs: the CEREC InLab system and Dentbird software. The internal and marginal gaps were measured at four locations: mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual- using the silicone replica technique. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc analyses (α = 0.05) were performed to detect statistical differences in the marginal and internal gaps among the groups.
resultsThe results revealed significant differences in internal and marginal gaps between the automatic methods of the Dentbird software and the CEREC system (p < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found in the semi-automatic methods between the two systems (p > 0.05). Although the fits of crowns automatically designed by Dentbird software were inferior to those of the semi-automatic method by Dentbird software and the CEREC In Lab system, the values of all four groups were within the clinically acceptable range (<120 µm).
conclusionThe internal and marginal fit of crowns designed using the automatic and semi-automatic modes in Dentbird, a freely available CAD platform, fell within the range of traditional clinical acceptability. Hence, automatically generated crowns may be considered appropriate for immediate provisional applications, the semi-autonomic finishing line detection can be used for long term crowns in clinical practice.
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.