ArticleJournal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists2026
Repair strength of 3D-printed denture base resins: Effect of surface treatment and repair material type.
Article in Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of air-borne particle abrasion and tribochemical silica coating on surface characteristics, mechanical behavior, and bonding performance of 3D-printed resin-based materials.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Influence of surface pretreatments on the repair bond strength of 3D-printed resin used for permanent restorations: anFrontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Mechanical and esthetic properties of denture base resins in relation to thermocycling.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bond strength of aged provisional 3D-printed methacrylate resin with different surface treatments and repair materials.BMC oral health · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study was to investigate the effect of surface treatment and repair materials on the flexural strength of repaired 3D-printed denture base resins after thermal aging. MATERIALS AND
methodsBar-shape specimens (64 × 10 × 3.3 mm) were designed as intact (control) specimens while repair specimens were printed in sections with 2.5 mm space for repair material. Printing was performed with either ASIGA or NextDent denture base material. In each material, one group received no surface treatment, while other repair groups were subjected to one of three surface treatments: (1) monomer application, (2) aluminium oxide particles-abrasion, or (3) both methods (aluminum oxide particles-abrasion and monomer application). Pairs were fixed in a customized mold then repaired with either autopolymerizing acrylic resin or flowable composite (n = 9). Repaired specimens were incubated for 48 h at 37°C in distilled water and then subjected to thermal cycling (5000 cycles). A 3-point bending test was used to evaluate the flexural strength using a universal testing machine, and mode of failure determined followed by fractured surface analysis using scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test (α = 0.05).
resultsBoth resin materials showed a significant decrease in the flexural strength of repaired specimens when compared to control ones (p < 0.001). Groups with no surface treatment had significantly lower flexural strength than those with surface treatment (p < 0.001). Groups treated with monomer application, and with aluminum oxide particles abrasion plus monomer application had similar flexural strength values (p > 0.05), which were higher than those treated with aluminum oxide particles abrasion alone (p < 0.001). Specimens repaired with composite resin showed higher flexural strength than those repaired with auto-polymerized resin (p < 0.05) however, specimens treated with aluminum oxide particles abrasion alone had similar values for both repair materials (p = 0.95). Adhesive failure was dominant in all repaired groups with auto-polymerized while cohesive and mixed were dominant with composite repair groups.
conclusionSurface treatment improved the repair strength of 3D-printed denture base resins. Using composite resin for repair shows better strength with dominant cohesive and mixed failure suggesting that surface treatment and composite repair are suitable procedures for 3D-printed denture base repair.
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.