Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39480538›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2024

Characterization of 3D printed composite for final dental restorations.

Lucas Eigi Borges Tanaka, Camila da Silva Rodrigues, Manassés Tércio Vieira Grangeiro, Tiago Moreira Bastos Campos, Renata Marques de Melo

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lucas Eigi Borges TanakaDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (UNESP), São José dos Campos, 12220-000, Brazil.
Camila da Silva RodriguesDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (UNESP), São José dos Campos, 12220-000, Brazil.
Manassés Tércio Vieira GrangeiroDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (UNESP), São José dos Campos, 12220-000, Brazil.
Tiago Moreira Bastos CamposAeronautics Technological Institute (ITA), 50 Praça Marechal Eduardo Gomes, São José dos Campos, 12228-900, São Paulo State, Brazil.
Renata Marques de Melo, São José dos Campos, Brazil. renata.marinho@fosjc.unesp.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study evaluated the mechanical, optical, microstructural, surface, and adhesive behavior of a 3D printing resin comparing it with a machinable resin composite. MATERIALS AND

methodsSpecimens of different sizes and shapes were either printed (Vitality, Smart Dent) or machinable (Grandio Blocs, Voco GmbH) resin composites with similar composition were prepared. Surface and mechanical characterization were performed with Knoop hardness, flexural strength (three-point-bending), and elastic modulus tests. The wear of the tested materials was evaluated against steatite antagonists. The optical properties stability (color change, ΔE

resultsHardness values (132.76 (16.32) KH- Machinable and 35.87 (2.78) KH - Printed), flexural strength (172.17 (26.99) MPa - Machinable and 88.69 (8.39) MPa - Printed), color and translucency change (1.86 (0.31)/0.06 - Machinable and 3.73 (0.36)/9,16- Printed), and wear depth (24.97 mm (3.60)- Machinable and 7.16 mm (2.84) - Printed) were statistically different. Average Regarding bond strength, mean values (MPa) for non-aged and aged groups were respectively 21.76 (6.64) / 31.9 (12.66) for Bifix cement (Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany) and 26.75 (5.14) / 24.36 (6.85) for Variolink cement (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) in Printed and 17.79 (3.89) / 9.01 (3.36) ) for Bifix cement and 22.09 (6.55) / 11.01 (3.77) for Variolink cement in Machinable materials. The material and aging factors did affect bond strength but the cement factor did not (p = 0.202). No statistical differences were observed for mean roughness (Ra) between materials. The better dispersion and larger size of the inorganic particles in the Machinable resin were contrasted with the clustered smaller particles of printed resin, under SEM.

conclusionsThe mechanical properties and color stability of the machinable resin were superior to those of the printed resin, probably due to the greater amount and dispersion of inorganic particles in the Mach resin, but bond strength after aging was stronger and more stable in the printed resin. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: 3D-printed resin composites with similar compositions to machinable resin composites do not necessarily exhibit the same properties, which can impact clinical performance. Understanding these differences can assist manufacturers in improving their materials and help clinicians distinguish between materials appropriate for provisional and final restorations.

Indexed as

Composite ResinsElastic ModulusFlexural StrengthHardnessMaterials TestingMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningPrinting, Three-DimensionalSurface PropertiesDental BondingDental Restoration, PermanentDental Stress AnalysisResin CementsSpectrometry, X-Ray EmissionComposite ResinsResin CementsMechanical propertiesOptical propertiesPrinted resinWear

Identifiers

PMID39480538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.