ArticleBMC oral health2026
Accuracy of digitally fabricated partial coverage ceramic restorations using conventional impression and intraoral scanners.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of digitally fabricated partial coverage ceramic restorations with two designs using conventional impression and intraoral scanners.
methodsForty-eight sound human maxillary first premolars with homogenous dimensions were partitioned into two equal groups (n
resultsSC1 demonstrated the lowest mean marginal gap in D1and D2. The Tukey post-hoc multiple comparison test indicated that statistically significant changes in marginal adaption were mostly related to restorations produced using the SC1, especially in D2. Design 2 overlays generated with SC1(D2SC1) exhibited markedly reduced marginal gap values in comparison to those produced by the conventional impression technique (D2C) (p = 0.017) and in relation to D1SC2 (p = 0.007), as well as D1 created using the conventional impression method (D1C) (p = 0.034). Conversely, the majority of pairwise comparisons between conventional impressions(C) and SC2, irrespective of design type, were not statistically significant.
conclusionsDigital impressions improved marginal integrity of overlay restorations and offered a clinically effective alternative to conventional silicone impressions within a digital workflow, the TRIOS 5 (3Shape) scanner demonstrated improved marginal adaptation across both preparation designs compared to the other techniques. This may be attributed to its high trueness and precision, as well as its confocal microscopy-based image acquisition technology, with the effect becoming more evident in complex designs.
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.