ArticleInternational dental journal2026
Comparative Evaluation of Robotic and Manual Bending of Clasps for Removable Partial Dentures.
Article in International dental journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
aimsConventional removable partial denture (RPD) clasp fabrication with wrought wire depends on operator skill, limiting efficiency and reproducibility. This study compared robotically and manually bent clasps for fabrication efficiency, adaptation, reproducibility, and initial retentive force.
methodsTwo groups of clasps (n = 10 per group) were bent using either a robotic clasp-bending machine or an experienced technician. Bending time was recorded. Clasp adaptation and reproducibility were evaluated using scanning and 3D registration software. Initial retentive force was measured using a specialized clasp retention testing system for (1) dentures incorporating robot-bent clasps with 3D-printed bases and (2) dentures incorporating manually bent clasps with conventionally processed acrylic resin bases. Data were analysed using independent-samples t tests or Mann-Whitney U tests, as appropriate, with α = 0.05.
resultsRobotic clasp fabrication was significantly faster (median, 69.9 seconds) than manual bending (median, 336.9 seconds; P < .001). Robotically bent clasps demonstrated superior adaptation, with smaller clasp-abutment gaps at the clasp body (83.1 µm vs 121.5 µm; P < .001) and reduced variability. At the mid-clasp arm, disto-axial angle of the clasp body, and the middle and lingual aspects of the proximal groove, robotically bent clasps also showed closer adaptation than manually bent clasps (P < .05). Initial retentive force did not differ significantly between groups.
conclusionsRobot-assisted clasp bending significantly improved efficiency, clasp adaptation, and reproducibility compared with manual bending, while preserving comparable initial retentive force between groups. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This digital approach offers a practical option for routine RPD fabrication, facilitating more consistent clasp quality and potentially reducing clinical and laboratory workload.
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.