ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2026
Effect of Different Impression and Fabrication Techniques on the Precision of Custom Metal Posts: Fully Digital, Semi-Digital, and Conventional.
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.
- Post and Core for Telescopic Crown-Retained Dentures-An In Vitro Comparison of Different Materials Using Chewing Simulation.Dentistry journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated the effect of different impression and fabrication techniques-conventional casting and 3D printing-on the precision of metal post-and-core restorations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A maxillary central incisor was designed in ExoCAD, and STL files of the reference tooth and the "ideal" post were saved; the reference tooth was additively manufactured in metal. Four workflows were compared (n = 10/group): (1) conventional impression with a direct resin pattern and casting (CO); (2) semi-digital impression with an intra-canal Duralay pattern plus Silicone pick-up, laboratory scan, and direct metal printing (DS); (3) semi-digital Full Silicone (putty/wash) impression, laboratory scan, and direct metal printing (FS); and (4) fully digital intraoral scanning with Medit i700 and direct metal printing (FD). For each specimen, the fabricated post STL was compared to the "ideal post" STL in Geomagic Control X to assess precision. Normality was tested with Shapiro-Wilk, and between-group comparisons used one-way analysis of variance in SPSS (α = 0.05).
resultsIn forty specimens (FD, DS, FS, CO; n = 10/group), three outcomes were analyzed: In-Tol, Over-Tol, and Under-Tol. In-Tol differed significantly among groups (p < 0.001); Tamhane's T2 indicated FD > DS, FS, CO (p = 0.006, < 0.001, < 0.001). Over-Tol differed significantly (p < 0.001); FD < FS (p < 0.001), FD < CO (p = 0.021), and DS < FS (p < 0.001). Under-Tol also differed significantly (p < 0.001); DS > FD (p = 0.027), DS > FS (p = 0.011), and CO > FS (p = 0.016).
conclusionFully digital, directly printed Co-Cr posts exhibited superior precision compared with conventional and semi-digital workflows. While conventional casting remains reliable, direct metal printing appears to be a practical and potentially easier alternative.
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.