ArticleOdontology2026
3D printing vs. conventional wax patterns: a comparative in vitro study on retention of RPD framework.
Article in Odontology, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Removable partial dentures (RPDs) are widely used in prosthodontic rehabilitation, where retention is crucial for function, comfort, and patient satisfaction. Conventional wax-up techniques for fabricating RPD frameworks are prone to inaccuracies due to manual errors. Advances in digital dentistry and 3D printing have introduced alternative fabrication methods, potentially enhancing fit and retention. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the retention of cobalt-chromium RPD frameworks fabricated using conventional wax patterns and 3D-printed castable resin pattern. An in vitro experimental design was employed using prefabricated typodont models of mandibular Kennedy Class I and maxillary Kennedy Class II modification 2. A total of 120 casts (60 per arch) were divided equally into conventional (CT) and 3D-printed (3DPT) groups. Frameworks were fabricated following standardized protocols. Retention was measured using an electronic vertical pull device, and statistical analysis included paired t tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, depending on data distribution. 3D-printed RPD frameworks demonstrated significantly higher retention compared to conventional ones. For mandibular models, mean retention values were 4.82 N (3DPT) vs. 3.86 N (CT) (p < 0.001, r = 0.87). For maxillary models, mean retention was 49.67 N (3DPT) vs. 40.92 N (CT) (p < 0.001, Cohen's dz = 4.20). Within the limitations of this in vitro study, RPD frameworks fabricated from 3D-printed castable resin pattern exhibited superior retention compared to those made with conventional wax patterns. These findings support the integration of digital workflows in removable prosthodontics, highlighting the potential of 3D printing to enhance clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41843335What 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.