ArticleHeliyon2024
Accuracy of repaired maxillary dentures from two different repairing techniques: In vitro study.
Article in Heliyon, 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.
- Strain gauge analysis and deformation detection of maxillary denture bases reinforced by CAD/CAM milled zirconia and cobalt chromium (Co-Cr) frameworks: An in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Role of Nurses in Enhancing Removable Dental Prostheses Hygiene.European journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Comparison between relining of ill-fitted maxillary complete denture versus CAD/CAM milling of new one regarding patient satisfaction, denture retention and adaptation.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Flexural properties of rapidly prototyped denture base materials: the effect of nanoparticle addition and post-curing durationFrontiers in dental medicine · 2025Article
- Conventional scan body vs. scan bodies with auxiliary geometric devices: anFrontiers in 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Denture fracture is a common problem with acrylic dentures. The fractured denture can be repaired using various techniques such as self-cure acrylic resin acrylic resin and fiber-reinforced acrylic resin. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of dentures repaired with self-cure acrylic resin and fiber-reinforced acrylic resin processed using two different techniques (long-cure and microwave processing). Materials and methods: A total of 20 maxillary complete dentures were processed with two techniques; heat (long cycle) processing (10 dentures) and microwave processing (10 dentures). The maxillary cast and denture surface were scanned with Medit intraoral (Medit i700, Medit, South Korea) and STL files were created. Then, the dentures were sectioned at the midline and repaired using self-cure acrylic resin and fiber-reinforced acrylic resin and scanned with Medit intraoral. Finally, adaptation deviations were analyzed from computer software (Geomagic Control X, 3D Systems Inc., USA). The adaptation deviations in each group (long cure and microwave) were compared using an Independent T-test. Two-way ANOVA was done to see whether curing techniques and repairing methods affect the accuracy of repair. A P-value of 0.05 was considered significant. Results: The adaptation deviation was slightly higher in the fiber-reinforced acrylic resin group (0.565 ± 0.093) than in the self-cure acrylic resin group (0.536 ± 0.066). However, there was no statistical difference in the adaptation deviations of repaired dentures with self-cure acrylic resin and fiber-reinforced acrylic resin in the long-curing (P-value 0.245) and the microwave (P-value 0.638). Similarly, the adaptation deviation was slightly higher in the long-curing group (0.577 ± 0.075) than in the microwave group (0.524 ± 0.079). However, there was a statistically significant difference in the adaptation deviation of repaired dentures between long-curing and microwave techniques with self-cure acrylic resin (P-value 0.016) but no difference in fiber-reinforced acrylic resin (P-value 0.127). The result of Two-way ANOVA shows that there is no statistically significant interaction between curing techniques (long curing and microwave) and repairing methods (self-cure acrylic resin and fiber-reinforced acrylic resin) for adaptation deviations (P-value 0.646). However, the curing techniques show statistically significant differences (P-value 0.039). Conclusion: Acrylic dentures can be repaired with self-cure resin or fiber-reinforced self-cure resin using various processing methods. The accuracy of the denture after repair is unaffected by the repairing method (self-cure acrylic resin and fiber-reinforced acrylic resin) but the accuracy of the denture after repair is affected by the curing techniques (long-curing and microwave). In self-cure resin, the microwave processing showed higher adaptation deviation and less accuracy, whereas the long-curing processing showed lower adaptation deviation and high accuracy.
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.