ArticlePolymers2024
Evaluation of the Mechanical and Adhesion Characteristics of Indirect Restorations Manufactured with Three-Dimensional Printing.
Article in Polymers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Fracture Resistance in CAD-CAM Additively Manufactured Occlusal Veneers.Polymers · 2026Article
- Effect of silane treatment and resin cement type on bond strength to three-dimensional printed restorative resin: an in vitro experimental study.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Comparison of physico-mechanical properties of 3D-printed resins used as permanent indirect restoration materials.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the marginal fit and bond strength characteristics of onlay restorations manufactured by three-dimensional printing (Varseo XS, Bego GmbH, Bremen, Germany) and CAD/CAM (CAMcube, Montreal, QC, Canada) systems. Class II onlay cavities on sixty mandibular molars were prepared in cavities and restored in three separate groups using different fabrication methods. Digital and conventional impressions were taken to design the restorations in the CAD system (DWOS, Straumann GmbH, Freiburg, Germany). To evaluate the marginal fit and void volumes, all specimens were scanned with microcomputed tomography. A microshear test was performed to compare the bond strength of the restorations to the tooth surface. The marginal fit values measured for the 3D-printed and CAD/CAM onlay restorations were found to be at clinically acceptable levels (<120 µm), and no significant difference could be observed between the three different fabrication methods (
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.