ArticleOdontology2024
Bacterial adhesion to composite resins produced by additive and subtractive manufacturing.
Article in Odontology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Different Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness of 3D-Printed Resins.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Surface Roughness and Bacterial Adhesion of CAD/CAM and Conventional Provisional Restorative Materials.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Investigation of the effects of mouthwashes on the surface properties of CAD/CAM blocks and 3D-printed resins.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Surface Properties of Dental Materials Influence the In Vitro Multi-Species Biofilm Formation.Polymers · 2026Article
- Microbiological behavior of 3D printing materials for indirect restorations: A scoping review.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- The effect of post-processing washing time on the physical and chemical properties of 3D printable resin materials.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Surface Characteristics of Subtractively and Additively Manufactured Restorative Materials for Definitive Restorations.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Modern 3D-Printed Hybrid Resin-Ceramic Materials for Indirect Restorations: An In Vitro Study.Polymers · 2024Article
- Article
- Effects of washing agents on the mechanical and biocompatibility properties of water-washable 3D printing crown and bridge resin.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Biofilm Formation on Hybrid, Resin-Based CAD/CAM Materials for Indirect Restorations: A Comprehensive Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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
The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness and contact angle of composite resins produced by CAD/CAM milling and three-dimensional (3D) printing for permanent restorations as well as the adhesion of S. mutans and S. sanguinis bacteria to these composites. Three CAD/CAM milling composite resins (Vita Enamic-VE, Cerasmart-CE, Lava Ultimate-LU) and three 3D printing resins (Varseo Smile Crown plus-VSC, Saremco print Crowntech-SPC, Formlabs 3B Permanent crown-FLP) were selected. Twenty samples were prepared for each group. Using a contact profilometer, the surface roughness was determined, and an optical goniometer was used to quantify the contact angle. To evaluate the bacterial adhesion, composite specimens were immersed in mucin containing artificial saliva. All samples were incubated for 24 h at 37°C in 5% CO
Indexed as
Identifiers
37819468What 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.