ArticleHead & face medicine2025
Influence of acidic solutions on surface roughness of polished and glazed CAD-CAM restorative materials.
Article in Head & face medicine, 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.
- Article
- Influence of Acidic Storage and Simulated Toothbrushing on the Translucency and Color Stability of 3D-Printed Resins for Prosthodontic Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the surface roughness (Ra) changes of different dental ceramic materials with different compositions, which were applied two different surface treatments after exposure to acidic pH. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the Ra changes of different CAD-CAM materials with different compositions, which were applied two different surface treatments, after exposure to acidic pH.
methodsA total of the 168 samples (12 × 14 × 2 mm) were obtained from ceramic blocks (IPS e.max CAD (LDS)), GC Cerasmart (RNC-C), Lava Ultimate (RNC-L), and Vita Enamic (PIC). Half of each group was subjected to mechanical polishing, and the other half was glazed. After the initial Ra evaluations were made, the samples classified with 7 in each subgroup were kept in three different solutions (citric acid, Coca-Cola, and artificial saliva-control group). After 168 h, surface roughness values of the specimens were measured again.
resultsIn the RNC-C samples, varying surface treatments and exposure to various solutions did not produce a statistically significant difference. Different acidic solutions did not affect the Ra values of LDS and RNC-C ceramics. The percentage change in Ra values in the glazed samples of PIC exposed to Coca-Cola and RNC-L exposed to artificial saliva were higher than those applied mechanical polishing.
conclusionThe Ra values of RNC-C ceramics were not affected by both surface treatment and acid exposure. The percentage change in Ra values was highest in PIC ceramics. In general, glazed samples had larger Ra change values and higher percentage change in Ra values than manually polished ones.
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.