Fit Accuracy of Removable Partial Denture Frameworks Fabricated with CAD/CAM, Rapid Prototyping, and Conventional Techniques: A Systematic Review

Table 5

Methodological quality assessment results of the selected studies according to the standards described in the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (v5.1.0).

Study	Patient chosen randomly	Blinding		Withdrawal/dropout mentioned	Variables measured many times	Sample size	Inclusion/exclusion criteria clear	Examiner reliability tested	Clearly report all expected outcomes prespecified	Quality of study/bias risk
		Participants	Assessor
Ye et al. [13]	Yes	Unclear	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Almufleh et al. [14]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Low
Bajunaid et al. [15]	Unclear	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Moderate
Maryod et al. [16]	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Moderate
Arnold et al. [17]	Unclear	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	High
Soltanzadeh et al. [18]	Unclear	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Moderate
Tregerman et al. [19]	Yes	Unclear	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Low
Chen et al. [20]	Unclear	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Moderate
Honqqiang et al. [21]	Unclear	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	High

A study was graded to have a low risk of bias if it yielded 6 or more “yes” answers to the 9 questions, moderate risk if it yielded 3 to 5 “yes” answers, and high risk if it yielded 2 “yes” answers or less.