ArticlePloS one2021
Surface roughness, plaque accumulation, and cytotoxicity of provisional restorative materials fabricated by different methods.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 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
41 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surface Properties, Color Stability, and Bacterial Adhesion of Implant-Supported Provisional Restorative Materials: In Vitro Study.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- Effect of different dentifrices on surface roughness of conventional and additively manufactured resin-based restorative materials.Odontology · 2026Article
- Current Clinical Practices and Digital Technology Adoption in Provisional Prosthodontics: A Cross-Sectional Survey Among Romanian Dental Practitioners.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Polishing of provisional crown materials: the effects onThe journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2026Article
- Inflammation-Driven Epithelial Plasticity in Oral Mucosa Adjacent to Long-Term Restorative Materials: A Retrospective Histopathological and Immunohistochemical Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Effects of Ultrasonic Scaling and Teeth Brushing on Surface Properties of PEEK Prosthetic Restorations.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Tribological Performance of CAM-Processed Interim Dental Restoration Materials: Effects of 3D Printing, Milling, and Post-Processing on Wear and Surface Topography.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Impact of Mouthwash Immersion on 3D-Printed Resin Material: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Surface Hardness, Surface Roughness, Wettability, and Characterization Using FTIR and FE-SEM Techniques.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Comparison of surface integrity, longevity of posterior tooth-colored crowns fabricated by conventional, CAD/CAM, and 3D printing techniques.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Microbiological behavior of 3D printing materials for indirect restorations: A scoping review.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Surface Roughness and Microbial Adhesion on Four Provisional Prosthodontic Restorative Materials.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Effects of silica particle size on the mechanical, surface and printing-trueness properties of 3D-printing dental resin.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Monomer release, cytotoxicity, and surface roughness of temporary fixed prosthetic materials produced by digital and conventional methods.Odontology · 2025Article
- The effect of ozone application on the color stability and surface roughness of restorative materials aged with different solutions: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- A Comparative In Vitro Study of Materials for Provisional Restorations Manufactured With Additive (3Dprinting), Subtractive (Milling), and Conventional Techniques.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparison of Color Stability and Surface Roughness of Interim Crowns Fabricated by Conventional, Milling and 3D Printing Methods.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
- Biofilm Formation on Three High-Performance Polymeric CAD/CAM Composites: An In Vitro Study.Polymers · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fabricating method may affect the surface properties and biological characteristics of provisional restorations. This study aimed to evaluate the surface roughness, plaque accumulation, and cytotoxicity of provisional restorative materials fabricated by the conventional, digital subtractive and additive methods. Sixty-six bar-shaped specimens (2×4×10 mm) were fabricated by using provisional restorative materials through the conventional, digital subtractive and additive methods (n = 22 per group). Ten specimens of each group were used for surface roughness and plaque accumulation tests, 10 specimens for cytotoxicity assay, and 2 specimens of each group were used for qualitative assessment by scanning electron microscopy. The Ra (roughness average) and Rz (roughness height) values (μm) were measured via profilometer, and visual inspection was performed through scanning electron microscopy. Plaque accumulation of Streptococcus mutans and cytotoxicity on human gingival fibroblast-like cells were evaluated. The data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (α = 0.05). Surface roughness, biofilm accumulation and cytotoxicity were significantly different among the groups (P<0.05). Surface roughness was significantly higher in the conventional group (P<0.05); however, the two other groups were not significantly different (P>0.05). Significantly higher bacterial attachment was observed in the additive group than the subtractive (P<0.001) and conventional group (P = 0.025); while, the conventional and subtractive groups were statistically similar (P = 0.111). Regarding the cytotoxicity, the additive group had significantly higher cell viability than the subtractive group (P = 0.006); yet, the conventional group was not significantly different from the additive (P = 0.354) and subtractive group (P = 0.101). Surface roughness was the highest in conventionally cured group; but, the additive group had the most plaque accumulation and lowest cytotoxicity.
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.