ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Performance of posterior 3D printed resin-matrix ceramic crowns fabricated in a fully digital workflow: a two-year prospective clinical study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the survival and success rates, as well as mechanical and biological outcomes of posterior 3D-printed resin-matrix ceramic crowns in a fully digital workflow over a 2-year follow-up. MATERIAL AND
methodsA prospective clinical trial was conducting involving 30 posterior crowns fabricated from a resin-matrix ceramic using DLP 3D-printing technology. Dental preparations were performed and scanned with an intraoral scanner by a single operator. All crowns were cemented using the same dual-curing resin cement. Clinical performance was assessed using California Dental Association (CDA) criteria. Periodontal parameters (plaque index, gingival index and probing depth) were evaluated with a periodontal probe at cementation and at 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year recall appointments on abutment teeth and contralateral or antagonistic uncrowned natural teeth used as controls. Data were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test and Kaplan–Meier survival analysis.
resultsThe 2-year survival rate was 93%, and the success rate was 87%. Two crowns debonded, and no biological complications were observed. All crowns remained within the satisfactory range after 2 years. A slight yellow shift was detected in 4 crowns, resulting in a significant color change at 2 years (p = 0.046), while all other CDA parameters remained unchanged. The margin remained stable throughout the observation period. Plaque index increased after one year in the abutment and control teeth.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, including the absence of a control group, 3D-printed resin-matrix ceramic crowns may represent a viable alternative for posterior teeth. Long-term studies are required to confirm these results. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Posterior 3D-printed resin–matrix ceramic crowns within a fully digital workflow demonstrated satisfactory performance after two years, supporting their potential as a viable option for posterior restorations.
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.