ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of a 3D-printed nanohybrid resin composite versus a milled resin composite for flexural strength, wear and color stability.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanical Performance of Milled CAD/CAM Versus 3D-Printed Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Flexural Strength and Fracture Resistance.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Geometric Accuracy of 3D-Printed Composite Dental Restorations Compared with the Original STL Design.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Article
- Effects of Gastric Acid and Antiacid Medications on Surface Roughness, Morphology, and Optical Properties of Resin-Based Materials.Polymers · 2026Article
- Effect of boric acid on the color stability and mechanical properties of 3D-printed permanent resins.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Surface gloss changes in 3D-printed resin materials following different polishing procedures and aging protocols.BMC 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundControversial properties and performance of commercially available 3D-printed resin composite for permanent restorations. So, the purpose of this study was to assess the flexural strength, microhardness, wear, and color stability of 3D-printed versus milled nanohybrid resin composites for permanent restoration.
methodsA total of 70 samples of nanohybrid resin composites were used; 38 bar-shaped (14 mm ⋅ 2 mm ⋅ 2 mm) and 32 disc-shaped samples (10 mm ⋅ 2 mm) of Tetric CAD
resultsTC resulted in significantly higher flexural strength (247.7 ± 29.1 MPa) and microhardness (94.6 ± 3 gf/um
conclusionsCompared with 3D-printed nanohybrid resin composites, milled nanohybrid resin composites have better flexural strength, microhardness and wear properties. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Milled nanohybrid resin composites exhibit superior flexural strength, microhardness, and wear resistance, making them potentially more durable for clinical dental restorations compared to 3D-printed nanohybrid resin composites.
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.