ArticleDental research journal2013
Evaluation of hardness and wear resistance of interim restorative materials.
Article in Dental research journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biting Down on Longevity: Correlating Microhardness, Nanoroughness, and Wear Resistance of Milled vs. 3D-Printed Dental Polymers.Polymers · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical Properties and Color Stability of Dental Resin Composites for Chairside Provisional Restorations.Polymers · 2024Article
- Effect of the processing cycle on dimensional changes of heat-polymerized denture base resins.Dental research journalArticle
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
backgroundThe interim restorative materials should have certain mechanical properties to withstand in oral cavity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the hardness and wear resistance of interim restorative materials. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifteen identical rectangular shape specimens with dimensions of 2 mm × 10 mm × 30 mm were made from 7 interim materials (TempSpan, Protemp 3 Garant, Revotek, Unifast LC, Tempron, Duralay, and Acropars). The Vickers hardness and abrasive wear of specimens were tested in dry conditions and after 1 week storage in artificial saliva. The depth of wear was measured using surface roughness inspection device. Data were subjected to Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to determine the relationship between hardness and wear (α =0.05).
resultsTempSpan had the highest hardness. The wear resistance of TempSpan (in dry condition) and Revotek (after conditioning in artificial saliva) was significantly higher (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant correlation between degree of wear and hardness of the materials (P = 0.281, r = -0.31).
conclusionHardness and wear resistance of interim resins are material related rather than category specified.
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.