ArticleBMC medical education2026
Evaluation of margin width in phantom teeth prepared for prosthetic crowns using digital scans: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
backgroundProper margin width is one of the key factors determining the correct fabrication of a prosthetic crown. Digital technologies, such as intraoral scanners, are increasingly used to assess parameters of tooth preparation for prosthetic crowns. The study aimed to evaluate the conservativeness of tooth preparation performed by third-year dental students on phantom teeth based on margin width and the utility of an intraoral scanner for its assessment.
methodsA total of 432 model teeth (KaVo) prepared for crowns by third-year dental students were tested: 216 maxillary right first molars (tooth 16) with a chamfer, and 216 maxillary right first premolars (tooth 14) with a classical shoulder. Tooth 16 was prepared first, followed by tooth 14 one week later. After each preparation, students were evaluated and received instructor feedback. All teeth were scanned using a 3Shape TRIOS 3 intraoral scanner, finish line widths were measured and compared to ideal crown preparation standards. Continuous variables are presented as medians and interquartile ranges, and categorical variables are presented as counts and percentages. Margin widths were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test (with rank-biserial effect sizes), and categorical classifications were analyzed with the chi-square test. A significance level of p < 0.05 was adopted. Calculations were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 29 and R software (version 4.4.2).
resultsFor tooth 16, median chamfer margin widths were: mesial 1.08 mm [IQR: 0.80-1.45], distal 1.17 mm [IQR: 0.79-1.55], lingual 1.17 mm [IQR: 0.87-1.41], and buccal 1.07 mm [IQR: 0.86-1.35]. Optimal widths were achieved by 22.9% (mesial), 21.9% (distal), 16.7% (lingual), and 15.7% (buccal) of students. For tooth 14, median widths were: mesial 0.67 mm [IQR: 0.51-0.93], distal 0.87 mm [IQR: 0.63-1.29], lingual 0.80 mm [IQR: 0.63-1.06], and buccal 0.78 mm [IQR: 0.60-1.01], with optimal widths achieved by 40% (mesial), 32.4% (distal), 41.4% (lingual), and 11.9% (buccal).
conclusionsThe study revealed significant variability in finish line width among students and tooth surfaces, with most preparations being excessively wide. An intraoral scanner may be a useful tool for assessing the margin width in prepared phantom teeth.
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.