Trial reportJournal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists2026
Randomized comparative crossover clinical study of mechanical and optical behavior, and oral health-related quality of life of CAD-CAM milled and 3D-printed complete-arch implant-supported interim restorations.
Trial report in Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05958043 (Performance of CAD/CAM Milled and 3D-printed Full-arch Implant-supported Provisionals Restorations), which is not on this 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.
Performance of CAD/CAM Milled and 3D-printed Full-arch Implant-supported Provisionals Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeClinical evidence regarding 3D-printed complete arch interim prostheses remains limited. This randomized crossover trial was designed to compare mechanical complications between milled polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and a hybrid ceramic 3D-printed interim restoration and assess mechanical complications, passive fit, optical behavior, and oral health-related quality of life. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty edentulous patients received two complete arch interim prostheses, one milled PMMA and one hybrid ceramic resin 3D-printed restoration, each used for 3 months in a randomized crossover sequence. Mechanical complications, passive fit, optical parameters (L*, a*, b*, ΔE00), and oral health-related quality of life were assessed. Paired nonparametric tests, including the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and McNemar test, were applied (α = 0.05), and risk differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
resultsMilled PMMA exhibited fewer mechanical complications than 3D-printed (10% vs. 45%; p = 0.016; risk difference +35.0 percentage points; 95% CI: 9.5-60.5). Passive fit showed no statistically significant differences between materials (p = 0.500). Mean ΔE00 did not differ significantly (PMMA 4.68 ± 6.57; 3D-printed 4.73 ± 4.75; p = 0.243). The 3D-printed material presented higher L* values at both evaluations (p < 0.001) and a significant increase in a* over time (p = 0.008). Both materials improved Oral Health Impact Profile-14 scores; at 3 months, 3D-printed prostheses showed slightly lower scores than PMMA (p = 0.045).
conclusionsMilled PMMA showed more favorable mechanical performance. Both materials demonstrated passive fit, stable optical behavior, and improvements in patient-reported outcomes during the 3-month period.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05958043.
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.