ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Evaluation of the marginal and internal fit of endocrown restorations fabricated by the CAD/CAM system using additive manufacturing technique.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the marginal and internal fit of endocrowns with cavity depths of 3 mm and 5 mm, using two printable resins fabricated by additive manufacturing within a digital workflow. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-two human mandibular molars were prepared for endocrowns with cavity depths of 3–5 mm and allocated into four groups (n = 8). Two printable resins (Biocrown Diamond and Voxel Print) were evaluated at both preparation depths. The restorations were designed using CAD software and manufactured by DLP-based additive manufacturing. Marginal and internal fit were assessed using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) from standardized sagittal and coronal sections at predefined anatomical regions. Data were analyzed using two-way repeated-measures ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test (α = 0.05).
resultsMaterial and preparation depth influenced the marginal and internal fit of endocrown restorations, with a significant interaction with the anatomical region. The highest discrepancies were observed in the axio-occlusal angle, particularly for the 5-mm preparation groups. Significant differences between materials occurred at the axio-occlusal angle for 3-mm preparations and in the marginal gap for 5-mm preparations. No significant differences were detected in the pulpal regions.
conclusionEndocrowns showed clinically acceptable marginal adaptation at both preparation depths. However, internal adaptation was region-dependent, with greater discrepancies in the axio-occlusal region. Both resins demonstrated acceptable behavior, although localized differences were observed according to preparation depth and anatomical region. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Preparation depth and printable resin type may influence the internal adaptation of additively manufactured endocrowns and should be considered during treatment planning.
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.