Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36835805›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023

Graphene-Doped Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) as a New Restorative Material in Implant-Prosthetics: In Vitro Analysis of Resistance to Mechanical Fatigue.

Eduardo J Selva-Otaolaurruchi, Lucía Fernández-Estevan, María Fernanda Solá-Ruiz, Fernando García-Sala-Bonmati, Inmaculada Selva-Ribera, Rubén Agustín-Panadero

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Eduardo J Selva-OtaolaurruchiDepartment of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, C/Gascó Oliag 1, 46010 Valencia, Spain.
Lucía Fernández-EstevanDepartment of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, C/Gascó Oliag 1, 46010 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7663-6740
María Fernanda Solá-RuizDepartment of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, C/Gascó Oliag 1, 46010 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7946-6932
Fernando García-Sala-BonmatiDepartment of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, C/Gascó Oliag 1, 46010 Valencia, Spain.
Inmaculada Selva-RiberaIndependent Researcher, 46010 Valencia, Spain.
Rubén Agustín-PanaderoDepartment of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, C/Gascó Oliag 1, 46010 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2757-6619

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeProvisional prostheses in restorations over several implants with immediate loading in completely edentulous patients increase the risk of frequent structural fractures. An analysis was performed of the resistance to fracture of prosthetic structures with cantilevers using graphene-doped polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) resins and CAD-CAM technology.

methodsA master model was produced with four implants measuring 4 mm in diameter and spaced 3 mm apart, over which 44 specimens representing three-unit fixed partial prostheses with a cantilever measuring 11 mm were placed. These structures were cemented over titanium abutments using dual cure resin cement. Twenty-two of the 44 units were manufactured from machined PMMA discs, and 22 were manufactured from PMMA doped with graphene oxide nanoparticles (PMMA-G). All of the samples were tested in a chewing simulator with a load of 80 N until fracture or 240,000 load applications.

resultsThe mean number of load applications required for temporary restoration until the fracture was 155,455 in the PMMA-G group versus 51,136 in the PMMA group.

conclusionsResistance to fracture under cyclic loading was three times greater in the PMMA-G group than in the PMMA group.

Indexed as

cad-camcantilevergrapheneimplants prosthesesPMMAprovisional

Identifiers

PMID36835805
PMCPMC9960587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.