Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39597450›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Analysis of Mechanical Properties and Printing Orientation Influence of Composite Resin for 3D Printing Compared to Conventional Resin.

Leonardo V Araújo, Fabiana S Figuerêdo de Siqueira, Rayssa F Cavaleiro de Macedo, Felipe S Gomes, Gustavo G Castro, Daniela B Dibai, Etevaldo M Maia Filho, Rudys R J Tavarez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

8 authors.

Leonardo V AraújoPost Graduated Program in Dentistry Program, Ceuma University, São Luís 65075-120, MA, Brazil.
Fabiana S Figuerêdo de SiqueiraPost Graduated Program in Dentistry Program, Ceuma University, São Luís 65075-120, MA, Brazil.
Rayssa F Cavaleiro de MacedoPost Graduated Program in Dentistry Program, Federal Maranhao University, São Luís 65085-582, MA, Brazil.
Felipe S GomesPost Graduated Program in Dentistry Program, Federal Maranhao University, São Luís 65085-582, MA, Brazil.
Gustavo G CastroPost Graduated Program in Dentistry Program, Ceuma University, São Luís 65075-120, MA, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3118-3746
Daniela B DibaiPost Graduated Program in Dentistry Program, Ceuma University, São Luís 65075-120, MA, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-6140-0177
Etevaldo M Maia FilhoPost Graduated Program in Dentistry Program, Ceuma University, São Luís 65075-120, MA, Brazil.
Rudys R J TavarezPost Graduated Program in Dentistry Program, Ceuma University, São Luís 65075-120, MA, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-3525-9245

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

3D printingcomposite resinflexural strengthmicrohardnesssurface roughness

Identifiers

PMID39597450
PMCPMC11595918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.