ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Analysis of Mechanical Properties and Printing Orientation Influence of Composite Resin for 3D Printing Compared to Conventional Resin.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the flexural strength, surface roughness, and microhardness of a resin for three-dimensional (3D) printing and a conventional composite resin and to evaluate whether the printing orientation influences these properties. To evaluate the flexural resistance, test specimens were produced and divided into four groups: three groups of resins for 3D printing with inclinations of 0°, 45°, and 90° and one group of conventional composite resin. Forty discs were produced and subjected to a sandpaper-polishing sequence, and the surface roughness was measured using a roughness meter. The Vickers microhardness (HV) test was performed at three different points, and the average was obtained. The results were subjected to ANOVA statistical analysis and Tukey's test. There were statistical differences in the flexural strength and microhardness between the conventional resin and the resin used for 3D printing. No statistical difference in surface roughness was observed. The resin for 3D printing exhibited lower flexural strength and microhardness than conventional composite resins. We concluded that the resin for 3D printing had lower flexural strength and HV than the conventional composite resin but similar surface roughness. The printing orientation did not affect the flexural strength, whereas the hardness increased as the printing angle increased.
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.