ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Characterization of a Lithium Disilicate CAD/CAM Material with Firing Temperature-Controlled Translucency.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of elevated extrinsic-stain firing temperatures on the optical, surface, and mechanical properties of lithium disilicate ceramics.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Article
- Effect of hydrofluoric acid and femtosecond laser application sequence on nano-lithium silicate CAD/CAM ceramic bonding: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Influence of Surface Treatments and Thermocycling on Wettability, Roughness, and Bond Strength of Lithium Disilicate CAD/CAM Ceramics.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
Lithium disilicates are widely used in restorative dentistry due to their aesthetics, strength, and durability. Increased strength can be achieved by increasing crystal fraction, but this modification also reduces translucency. Recently developed lithium disilicates like Amber Mill claim to offer customizable translucency via firing protocols without changes in flexural strength. This study evaluated whether Amber Mill's firing protocols produce significant differences in translucency without changing flexural strength. Forty specimens (n = 10) were assessed for translucency using Contrast Ratio (CR) and Translucency Parameter (TP) tests under four firing protocols designed to obtain high translucency (HT), medium translucency (MT), low translucency (LT), and medium opacity (MO). Using the three-point bending test, sixty specimens (n = 15) were tested for flexural strength with the same four firing protocols. The Weibull modulus and characteristic strength were also calculated, and SEM observation was performed. The CR and TP tests revealed statistically significant translucency differences only between MO and LT/MT/HT. Flexural strength ranked as MO > LT > MT > HT, with significant differences observed between MO vs. MT/HT and LT vs. HT. The findings indicate that the recommended firing protocols for the same shaded blocks resulted in limited differences in translucency. Additionally, higher translucencies were associated with reduced flexural strength, highlighting a trade-off between aesthetic and mechanical properties for Amber Mill.
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.