ArticleOdontology2025
Influence of build angle, printing layer thickness and aging on the flexural strength, precision, roughness and porosity analysis of a printed resin for provisional restorations.
Article in Odontology, 2025. 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.
- Influence of printing orientation on the mechanical and surface characteristics of a novel 3D-printed definitive resin-based composite.Odontology · 2026Article
- The Influence of Printing Orientation on the Properties of 3D-Printed Polymeric Provisional Dental Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
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
Abstract
Evaluate the impact of printing parameters on flexural strength (σ), flexural modulus (E), precision, and surface topography characteristics of a resin used to produce provisional restorations. 450 bars for provisional restorations were printed using the SLA printing (25 × 2x2mm ISO-4049), and randomly divided into 30 groups (n = 15) according to the following factors: "printing layer thickness" (25 μm;50 μm;100 μm), "Build angle" (0°,30°,45°,60°,90°) and "thermocycling-TC" (with or without). Following printing, the samples underwent cleaning with isopropyl alcohol. Photopolymerization was performed for 15 min with an UV lamp. Subsequently, each bar was assessed using a digital caliper at 11 specific points in three dimensions for comparison with the STL file area for precision analysis. Half of the samples underwent thermocycling. All samples were submitted to the σ test. Data for σ (MPa), and (GPa) and precision (mm) were analyzed using 3 and 2-way ANOVA, respectively, and Tukey's post hoc test (5%). Micro-CT, 3D profilometry, and SEM were also performed and analyzed descriptively. The 90°/25μm
Indexed as
Identifiers
39893310What 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.