ArticleBMC oral health2026
Fit of three-unit anterior fixed dental prosthesis frameworks fabricated by different manufacturing techniques.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis in vitro study aimed to evaluate different fabrication techniques for anterior cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) three-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and their effects on the fit of maxillary central incisor and canine abutments. MATERIALS AND
methodsFive fabrication techniques were evaluated as the experimental groups: manual wax carving and casting (Cast), milled wax and casting (CAW), 3D-printed polymers and casting (3DP), direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), and selective laser melting (SLM). Three-unit FDP frameworks were designed for the prepared maxillary central incisor and canine teeth, and Co-Cr specimens were fabricated (n = 10). Marginal (MDV), chamfer (CDV), axial (ADV), incisal (IDV), and overall discrepancy values (ODV) were evaluated using the silicone replica technique (SRT) and statistically analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)(α = 0.05).
resultsFabrication technique significantly affected measurements (p < 0.001), while tooth type did not. No differences in CDV, ADV, or IDV were found between canine and central incisor (P > 0.05). The 3DP technique showed higher MDV, CDV, and ODV than others (P < 0.05), and higher ADV than DMLS and SLM (P < 0.05). For IDV, 3DP had higher values in canine teeth compared to all techniques, and in central teeth compared to Cast, DMLS, and SLM (P < 0.05).
conclusionSLM showed a more favorable overall discrepancy than the lost-wax technique. Additionally, DMLS offers a comparable and viable alternative for fabricating anterior 3-unit FDP frameworks.
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.