ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2024
Cellular responses to 3D printed dental resins produced using a manufacturer recommended printer versus a third party printer.
Article in The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- In vitro biocompatibility evaluation of three-dimensionally printed resin crowns for primary molars.Odontology · 2026Article
- In Vitro Study Regarding Cytotoxic and Inflammatory Response of Gingival Fibroblasts to a 3D-Printed Resin for Denture Bases.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different 3D dental resins, using a manufacturer recommended printer and a third-party printer, on cellular responses of human gingival cells. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree NextDent resins (Denture 3D+, C&B MFH and Crowntec) were used to produce specimens on printers NextDent 5100 (groups ND, NC and NT, respectively) and Phrozen Sonic Mini 4K (groups PD, PC and PT, respectively). Human gingival fibroblasts were cultured and biocompatibility was evaluated on days 1, 3 and 7. IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations were evaluated at 3 days using ELISA. Surface roughness was evaluated by a contact profilometer. SEM and fluorescence micrographs were analyzed at days 1 and 7. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS and mean differences were tested using ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests (
resultsThere was an increase in cellular viability after 7 days in groups PC and PT, when compared to group PD. ND group resulted in higher concentration of IL-6 when compared to PT group. SEM and fluorescence micrographs showed less adhesion and thinner morphology of fibroblasts from group PD. No significant differences were found regarding surface roughness.
conclusionThe use of different printers or resins did not seem to influence surface roughness. NextDent 5100 and Phrozen Sonic Mini 4K produced resins with similar cellular responses in human gingival fibroblasts. However, Denture 3D+ resin resulted in significantly lower biocompatibility, when compared to C&B MFH and Crowntec resins. Further testing is required to support its long-term use, required for complete dentures.
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.