ArticleJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2025
A Comparative In Vitro Study of Materials for Provisional Restorations Manufactured With Additive (3Dprinting), Subtractive (Milling), and Conventional Techniques.
Article in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 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.
- Effect of build orientation on fracture load and surface roughness of three-unit provisional fixed partial dentures fabricated by digital light processing.Head & face medicine · 2026Article
- Effects of Isopropyl Alcohol, Tetrahydrofuran, Pyridine, and Acetonitrile on Surface Roughness, Surface Morphology, and Shear Bond Strength Between Composite Resin and Different Provisional Restorative Materials.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Digital dentures in modern prosthodontics: Techniques, materials and clinical outcomes.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of mechanical and physical properties of provisional crown and bridge materials fabricated using milling, three-dimensional printing and conventional methods: An in vitro study.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society · 2026Article
- Article
- Surface Characteristics of Subtractively and Additively Manufactured Restorative Materials for Definitive Restorations.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the mechanical, chemical, and surface properties of three materials used for provisional restorations, manufactured with additive (3D-printing), subtractive (milling), and conventional techniques. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree material groups were tested: (a) GC TempPRINT, (3D-printed/3DP), (b) VITA CAD-Temp, (milled/ML), and (c) Telio CS C&B, (conventional self-cured/CC). Each group consisted of 20 beam-shaped specimens (25 × 2 × 2 mm) used for a three-point flexural strength test and 5 discs (Ø:15 mm, h: 2 mm) used for surface roughness, gloss, degree of conversion, and hardness measurements. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Holm-Sidak multiple comparison tests (α = 0.05).
resultsThe ranking of the statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) was: 3DP >CC > ML (Sdr roughness parameter), ML >CC > 3DP (gloss) and ML > 3DP> CC (gloss, degree of conversion, hardness and flexural strength). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The tested materials showed statistically significant differences in all tested properties. These differences may affect their clinical performance and should be taken into consideration for their clinical application.
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.