ArticleOdontology2026
Influence of framework material on the global and region-specific fabrication accuracy and fit of 3-unit screw-retained implant frameworks.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the influence of different framework materials on the global and region-specific fabrication accuracy and framework fit. A cuboid prism (Ø12 × 14 × 1 mm) was fabricated, and two implant analogs were positioned 16 mm apart. This assembly served as the master model. Scan bodies were subsequently secured onto their respective implant analogs, and the master model was scanned using a laboratory scanner to generate the reference STL dataset. A total of 60 frameworks were subtractively fabricated from three different materials (Trinia, TriLor, and 3Y-TZP zirconia [n = 20 per material]). Global and region-specific fabrication accuracy (marginal, axial, occlusal, and intaglio regions on premolar and molar abutments) were quantified three-dimensionally using root mean square (RMS) error values. Fit was also assessed by combining the Sheffield test with the triple-scan protocol. Data were statistically analyzed (α = 0.05). The results of the one-way ANOVA showed no significant difference between materials for global trueness (P = 0.149) or global precision (P = 0.140). Region-specific trueness and fit were significantly affected by abutment, material, and region, including interaction effects (P < 0.002 for all), as indicated by the three-way ANOVA. For marginal fit, Trinia showed the smallest discrepancy at the premolar abutment (17.12 μm), TriLor showed the smallest discrepancy at the molar abutment (25.52 μm), and zirconia showed the highest discrepancies for both abutments (53.84 μm and 63.12 μm). Zirconia also produced the highest occlusal discrepancies (68.02 μm and 88.24 μm), whereas TriLor showed the highest axial discrepancy (75.52 μm and 79.84 μm). Although global fabrication accuracy was comparable among the tested materials, clinically relevant discrepancies were region- and abutment-dependent. Trinia demonstrated comparatively favorable and more consistent performance across several assessed fabrication accuracy and fit outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42126496What 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.