ArticleBMC oral health2026
Marginal adaptation of 3D-printed crowns: influence of preparation geometry and digitization workflow.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis in vitro study evaluated the impact of different workflow and finish line design on the marginal adaptation of 3D printed resin matrix ceramic crowns.
methodsForty extracted mandibular molars were randomly allocated into two groups according to finish line design (n = 20); heavy chamfer 0.8 mm (H) and conservative chamfer 0.2 mm (C). Each main group was divided into 2 subgroups (n = 10) according to workflow; direct digital intraoral scanning workflow (D) and semi-digital workflow (S). Crowns were 3D printed from hybrid resin and cemented using adhesive resin cement. Marginal adaptation was evaluated for all groups using a stereomicroscope before cementation and after the combined cementation and artificial aging. Statistical analysis was performed with 3-way ANOVAs and post hoc Tukey test, (P < 0.05).
resultsSignificant effects were found for finish line design, workflow, and the combined cementation and artificial aging (P < 0.05), with no significant interaction between finish line design and workflow (P = 0.552). Mean marginal gaps (µm) of test groups before cementation and after the combined cementation and aging protocol were: HD, (71.72 ± 4.82), (84.5 ± 2.75); CD, (82.16 ± 3.76), (97.32 ± 3.16); HS, (92.51 ± 3.64), (111.8 ± 3.37); and CS, (106.1 ± 3.57), (123.4 ± 2.58). All groups showed significant increases thereafter (P < 0.05). Heavy chamfer finish line and direct digital workflow each yielded significantly smaller marginal gap than conservative chamfer and semi-digital workflow at both time points (P < 0.05).
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, finish line design and workflow type each independently influenced the marginal adaptation of 3D-printed resin matrix ceramic crowns. A heavy chamfer and a direct digital workflow were each associated with smaller marginal gaps.
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.