## 3 Results
### Fit Assessment Outcomes

Table 2: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Study**} & **Fit Assessment Method** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Fit Qualitative**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Fit Assessment**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Fit Quantitative Outcome**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Protocols Studied and Fit Results**} \\  & **Method** & **Contorance** & & & & \\  & **(Technique)** & **Outcome Used** & & & & \\  & & **(Outcome Used)** & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{[PERSON], Cataneo \&} & \multirow{2}{*}{Ql (Visual & \multirow{2}{*}{Excellent} & \multirow{2}{*}{-} & \multirow{2}{*}{-} & \multirow{2}{*}{PT6 \(\approx\) PT1} \\  & & inspection; & & & & \\  & Pressing test; & & & & & \\  & Patient & & & & & \\  & satisfaction) & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{[PERSON] et al., 2021 [75]} & \multirow{4}{*}{(Superimposition & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{EF, OcR} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{PT3 \(>\) PT4} \\  & to STL desig; & & & & & \\  & analysis by CAE & & & & & \\  & softwares) & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{[PERSON] et al., 2022 [76]} & QT (Silicone & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{MC} & \multirow{4}{*}{200–500 \(\upmu\)m} & \multirow{4}{*}{PT11} \\  & specimens: Profile & & & & & \\  & projector) & & & & & \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2022 [77] & Nd & - & - & - & - \\ \hline \hline \multirow{10}{*}{Oh, [PERSON] \& [PERSON] specimens: CAE by superimposition)} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{EF, OcR, MC} & PT1 (EF: \multirow{4}{*}{PT1 \(\approx\) PT4 \(\approx\) PT6} \\  & & & & & 240 \(\pm\) 65 \(\upmu\)m; \multirow{4}{*}{MC} \\  & & & & & MC \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & 292 \(\pm\) 110 \(\upmu\)m), \multirow{4}{*}{PT4 (EF: \(\begin{array}{c}\\ \\ \\ \\ \end{array}\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{QT (Silicone & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{EF, OcR, MC} & \multirow{4}{*}{QK} \\  & specimens: CAE by superimposition)} & & & & 260 \(\pm\) 45 \(\upmu\)m; \multirow{4}{*}{MT \(\approx\) PT4 \(\approx\) PT6} \\  & & & & MC \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{[PERSON] et al., 2021 [79]} & \multirow{4}{*}{Ql (Visual & \multirow{4}{*}{Good (Good)} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{PT6} \\  & inspection; Patient & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{OcR} & \multirow{4}{*}{(310 \(\pm\) 113 \(\upmu\)m),} & \multirow{4}{*}{PT6 \(\approx\) PT1} \\  & & & & & (333 \(\pm\) 115 \(\upmu\)m) \\ \cline{1-1}  & & QT (Silicone & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{QT (310 \(\pm\) 113 \(\upmu\)m),} & \multirow{4}{*}{PT6 \(\approx\) PT1} \\  & specimens: & & & & \\  & Micro-CT + & & & & \\  & DataViewer + & & & & \\  & CT\(\upmu\)n) & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{[PERSON] et al., 2021 [81]} & QT (Silicone & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & \multirow{4}{*}{MC} & PT1 (0.154 g), \multirow{4}{*}{PT6 (0.215 g)} & \multirow{4}{*}{PT1 \(>\) PT6} \\  & specimens: & & & & PT6 (0.215 g) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Weight) & & & & \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2022 [82] & Nd & - & - & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._Visual inspection of the gap between the metal framework and the oral support structures was the most frequently used qualitative method of fit assessment (twenty-three papers). Other qualitative methods described were the pressing test (four papers) and patient satisfaction (seven papers). Reverse techniques with computer-aided engineering (CAE) were also described as a qualitative method in three manuscripts. One study assessed the fit by the presence/absence of oral tissue inflammation; in another, the method was not described (Table 2). Twenty-five studies measured the fit accuracy of the RPD frameworks by quantitative methods.