ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2026
Comparison of Trueness of Digitally- and Conventionally-Fabricated Mockups.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 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.
- Comparison of Trueness of Digitally- and Conventionally-Fabricated Mockups.Clinical and experimental dental research · 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
Abstract
objectivesRising demands for aesthetic outcomes make precise preoperative assessment essential. Despite advances in digital workflows, their accuracy versus conventional techniques remains uncertain. The current study comparatively assessed the trueness of digitally- and conventionally-fabricated mockups. MATERIALS AND
methodsFourteen patients needing ceramic veneers in the anterior maxilla participated. Each received three mockups: one fabricated conventionally and two digitally (additive and subtractive). The mockups were placed intraorally and scanned. The scans were superimposed on a reference model to evaluate the accuracy of the entire workflow and on the reference wax-up to assess production accuracy. Data were analyzed by paired samples test, repeated measures ANOVA, Bonferroni test, and generalized estimating equation (GEE) (α = 0.05).
resultsFor the whole production process, the root mean square (RMS) was 0.13 (0.04) for the conventional method, which was significantly lower than that for the additive as 0.60 (0.07) and subtractive of 0.51 (0.07) digital techniques (p < 0.001). Also, for the production phase, the mean RMS of different methods was significantly different (p < 0.001). The conventional method showed the lowest mean by 0.22 (0.07), and the additive technique showed the highest mean by 0.76 (0.02) RMS. The mean RMS was 0.73 (0.02) for the subtractive method.
conclusionsThe trueness of the conventional method was higher than that of the digital method for both the whole production process and the production phase. The conventional method significantly decreases the chairside time especially when tooth surface treatment is not required. The trueness of the subtractive method was higher than that of the additive method.
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.