ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2026
Evaluation of the Trueness and Precision of Cast, Milled-Cast, Milled, and 3D-Printed Post-and-Core Techniques Using Matching Software: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accurate adaptation of post-and-core restorations is critical for optimal stress distribution, retention, and long-term prognosis of endodontically treated teeth. While conventional lost-wax casting remains widely used, digital workflows such as computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) milling and 3-dimensional (3D) printing have emerged as alternative fabrication methods. MATERIAL AND METHODS This in vitro study evaluated the trueness, precision, and clinical tolerance of 4 fabrication techniques using 3D deviation analysis. A standardized digital model of a maxillary central incisor with a 10 mm post space was used to generate the reference standard tessellation language (STL) file for the corresponding post-and-core restoration. Forty post-and-core specimens were fabricated (n=10/group): (I) conventional casting, (II) milled wax-cast, (III) CAD/CAM-milled zirconia, and (IV) 3D-printed zirconia. Specimens were scanned using a high-resolution laboratory scanner and analyzed with digital metrology software. Trueness was assessed using root mean square (RMS) deviation, precision by standard deviation of RMS values, and clinical tolerance by the percentage of points within ±100 µm. RESULTS Conventional casting demonstrated significantly superior trueness (0.299±0.047 mm) and the highest clinical tolerance (3.9). All digital workflows exhibited significantly greater RMS deviations (P<0.001), with 3D-printed zirconia showing the lowest trueness. Precision differed significantly among groups (P<0.001), with conventional casting showing greater reproducibility, while milled and 3D-printed zirconia demonstrated comparable precision. Clinical tolerance remained low across all groups. CONCLUSIONS The conventional casting technique offered greater relative trueness and precision than the evaluated digital workflows. However, the absolute clinical accuracy across all groups was suboptimal. Despite workflow advantages, digital methods require further optimization to achieve clinically acceptable trueness, precision, and reliability.
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.