ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Intaglio Surface Accuracy of Temporary Crowns Fabricated by Additive Versus Subtractive CAD/CAM Methods.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The success of temporary restorations depends on their marginal and internal adaptation, which are influenced by the manufacturing method. This study evaluated the intaglio surface accuracy, internal fit, and marginal fit of provisional crowns fabricated via subtractive (milling) and additive (3D printing) CAD/CAM technologies. Three milling systems-CEREC Primemill (4-axis), PrograMill Dry (5-axis), and Zirkonzahn M1 (5-axis)-and three 3D printers-Phrozen Mini 4K (LCD), SprintRay Pro95S (DLP), and Stratasys Objet30 (PolyJet)-were evaluated. For 3D printing, five build orientations (0°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90°) were tested. A total of 360 crowns were fabricated. Accuracy was quantified by Root Mean Square (RMS) deviation, and fit was assessed using the triple-scan method. Results indicated that build angles of 0° and 30° yielded the best performance for printed crowns (
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.