ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2026
Influence of spacer and milling strategy on CAD/CAM ceramic crown fit and load-bearing capacity.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study assessed the influence of virtual spacer (70, 110, 150 m) and milling strategy (Standard vs. Veneer) on marginal and internal fit, and load-bearing capacity of CAD/CAM ceramic crowns. Material and Methods: Sixty composite resin abutments were scanned, and feldspathic ceramic crowns (CEREC Blocs) were fabricated. Micro-computed tomography evaluated marginal and internal fit on sagittal and axial planes. Crowns were bonded before monotonic load-bearing capacity testing. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (=5%). Results: Marginal fit showed no significant differences among milling strategies or spacer settings, and values for all groups were within the clinically accepted range (~100 to 150 m). The virtual spacer, but not the milling strategy, significantly influenced the internal fit at specific sites on both sagittal and axial planes. The 150 m spacer produced larger internal gaps compared to the 70 m setting at the affected sites. Load-bearing capacity (ranging from 924 N to 1297 N) showed no significant differences among any conditions tested. Conclusions: The virtual spacer thickness influenced the internal fit of ceramic crowns at specific measurement sites, while the milling strategy did not. Neither factor significantly affected the immediate load-bearing capacity under monotonic loading. Marginal fit remained clinically acceptable across all conditions.
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.