ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2024
Mechanical Assessment of Denture Polymers Processing Technologies.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRemovable prostheses have seen a fundamental change recently because of advances in polymer materials, allowing improved durability and performance. Despite these advancements, notable differences still occur amongst various polymer materials and processing technologies, requiring a thorough grasp of their mechanical, physical, and therapeutic implications. The compressive strength of dentures manufactured using various technologies will be investigated.
methodsTraditional, injection molding, and additive and subtractive CAD/CAM processing techniques, all utilizing Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) as the main material, were used to construct complete dentures. The specimens underwent a compressive mechanical test, which reveals the differences in compressive strength.
resultsAll the specimens broke under the influence of a certain force, rather than yielding through flow, as is characteristic for plastic materials. For each specimen, the maximum force (N) was recorded, as well as the breaking energy. The mean force required to break the dentures for each processing technology is as follows: 4.54 kN for traditional packing-press technique, 17.92 kN for the injection molding technique, 1.51 kN for the additive CAD/CAM dentures, and 5.9 kN for the subtractive CAD/CAM dentures.
conclusionsThe best results were obtained in the case of the thermoplastic injection system and the worst results were recorded in the case of 3D printed samples. Another important aspect depicted is the standard deviation for each group, which reveal a relatively unstable property for the thermoplastic injected dentures. Good results here in terms of absolute property and stability of the property can be conferred to CAD/CAM milled group.
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.