ArticlePolymers2021
Surface Characterisation of Dental Resin Composites Related to Conditioning and Finishing.
Article in Polymers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trueness, precision, and internal fit of additively and subtractively manufactured definitive resin-based crowns.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026Article
- Biting Down on Longevity: Correlating Microhardness, Nanoroughness, and Wear Resistance of Milled vs. 3D-Printed Dental Polymers.Polymers · 2026Article
- Aging-Induced Changes in Optical Behavior and Surface Morphology of Additively and Subtractively Manufactured Dental Materials.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
- The impact of inorganic fillers, organic content, and polymerization mode on the degree of conversion of monomers in resin-matrix cements for restorative dentistry: a scoping review.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Bacterial adhesion to composite resins produced by additive and subtractive manufacturing.Odontology · 2024Article
- Effect of the addition of silver nanoparticles on the mechanical properties of an orthodontic adhesive.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- Surface Characteristics of High Translucent Multilayered Dental Zirconia Related to Aging.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to the little information related to surface processing and conditioning of resin matrix ceramic materials previous glazing, the main purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the effect of different surface treatments on the surface morphology of different resin composite materials. Five types of resin composite CAD-CAM materials: a resin composite ceramic Vita Enamic (E) and four types of nanoparticle-filled resins, like Lava Ultimate (L), Cerasmart (C), Shofu HC (S), Hyramic (H) were taken into consideration. Specimens received the following surface treatment protocols: conventional polishing [p], polishing and glazing [pg], conditioning with CoJet [c], conditioning with CoJet and glazing [cg], sandblasting [s], sandblasting and glazing [sg], etching [e], etching and glazing [eg]. Surface roughness was analyzed for all samples and nanosurface topographic characterization was made by Atomic Force Microscopy. The highest roughness was registered for sandblasted surfaces [s], followed by tribochemical silica airborne particle abrasion [c], and etching [e]. A very strong correlated conditioning behavior of resin nanoceramic materials, like L, C and S samples was found. The microroughness decreased thus [s] > [c] > [e]. These are moderate correlated with H, and are moderate negative correlated to E, where e is more efficient. Three-dimensional images indicated visible grain boundaries after conditioning, for all materials. After polishing and glazing, surfaces became smoother. For all tested conditioning and finishing methods, surface roughness values were within clinically acceptable limits. Finishing by polishing was proved to be a good choice for all materials taken into consideration, polishing and glazing likewise, excepting Hyramic. For Enamic and Shofu HC sandblasting or tribochemical conditioning and glazing and for Hyramic polishing and glazing are not the best options, related to nanoroughness values. Referring to the nanosurface topography, for Enamic, Cerasmart and Hyramic, glazing would be the method of choice, associated with the adequate conditioning method for each material.
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.