ArticleBMC oral health2026
Evaluation of marginal and internal adaptation of implant-supported PEEK crowns fabricated by 3D printing, milling, and pressing: a micro-CT analysis.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the marginal adaptation and internal gap of implant-supported crowns fabricated from polyetheretherketone (PEEK) using CAD-CAM milling, heat pressing, and 3D printing, employing non-destructive micro-computed tomography (µCT).
methodsThis in-vitro study used thirty PEEK crowns (n = 10 per group) that were fabricated using CAD-CAM milling (MP), heat pressing (PP), and 3D printing (3DP) and seated on standardized zirconia abutments. Marginal and internal gaps were quantitatively assessed using high-resolution µCT scanning (voxel size: 9.2 μm) at 12 predetermined locations per crown in sagittal and coronal planes. Measurements included marginal gaps (mesial and distal), finish line gaps, and internal gaps at axial walls, occlusal surfaces, and internal line angles. Non-parametric statistical tests (Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s post hoc with FDR correction) were applied, with significance set at P < 0.05.
resultsAll measurement sites showed statistically significant differences between the groups (P < 0.001), with large effect sizes. Milled crowns exhibited the smallest occlusal gaps and superior adaptation at the occlusal surface (P < 0.001), while 3D-printed crowns demonstrated the best adaptation along axial walls and internal angles. Pressed crowns consistently showed the largest marginal and internal gaps across most regions. All fabrication techniques demonstrated marginal gap values within the clinically acceptable threshold (< 120 μm); however, statistically significant differences were observed in both marginal and internal adaptation among the three groups (P < 0.001).
conclusionsFabrication technique significantly affects the marginal adaptation and internal gap of implant-supported PEEK crowns. While milled crowns showed optimal occlusal adaptation, 3D-printed crowns provided the best internal conformity along axial surfaces. Pressed PEEK restorations exhibited the poorest adaptation. These findings underscore the importance of technique selection in optimizing clinical outcomes of PEEK-based implant prostheses. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Marginal adaptation and internal fit affect the biological and mechanical success of implant crowns. Milling and 3D printing showed better adaptation than heat pressing, supporting techniques that improve longevity and reduce complications.
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.