ArticlePloS one2025
Comparison of torch with electric arc casting in the lost wax technique for the cast dental stud protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the compressive strength, microstructural characteristics, and cost-effectiveness of cast dental posts fabricated using two techniques: torch casting (TC) and electric arc casting (EAC), both integral to the lost wax method. Employing an applied research approach with an experimental design, the study analyzed 40 non-precious gold (NPG) alloy cast posts, divided equally into two groups of 20 for each technique. The selection process was non-probabilistic and based on convenience, with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure precision and relevance. The results reveal a significant advantage for the EAC technique. In Essay 1, EAC posts exhibited a mean compressive strength of 206.102 MPa, compared to 157.207 MPa for TC posts. Similarly, in Essay 2, EAC posts showed a mean strength of 172.625 MPa versus 136.303 MPa for TC posts. These differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05), with EAC posts also displaying smaller failure diameters and areas, suggesting better load distribution. Morphological and microstructural analysis using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) revealed a porous surface with irregular topography in both techniques. However, EAC samples displayed crystalline growths within the copper matrix, indicating a non-homogeneous stoichiometry, while TC samples showed aluminum-enriched zones, suggesting a non-uniform elemental distribution. Chemical composition analysis via energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) identified copper (Cu) as the predominant element in both samples, with trace elements such as aluminum (Al), nickel (Ni), and iron (Fe) also present. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis further revealed distinct crystalline phases, with EAC samples exhibiting a higher proportion of Cu₃Zn and gamma-Fe phases compared to TC samples. A cost analysis using Python 3.13 and Monte Carlo simulation with 1,000 iterations revealed that EAC is more expensive, with a total cost per unit of 2.181compared to 1.467 for TC, primarily due to higher operational costs. The Mann-Whitney U test confirmed significant differences in cost distributions (p < 0.001), indicating that EAC has higher and more variable costs. In conclusion, the study demonstrates that EAC produces dental models with significantly higher compressive strength and a more refined microstructure compared to TC, enhancing restoration durability. However, its higher operational costs must be considered. These findings provide valuable information for dental professionals, particularly in low- to middle-income countries, and suggest that future research should explore additional properties such as corrosion resistance and biocompatibility to further validate the clinical applicability of these materials.
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.