ArticlePolymers2025
The Effect of Sterilization Methods on the Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed and Conventional PMMA Materials for Denture Bases of Immediate Obturators.
Article in Polymers, 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.
- Clinical Implications of Sterilization Methods Applied to 3D-Printed Implant Surgical Guides: An In Vitro Study.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Antifungal efficacy of Miswak extracts versus sodium hypochlorite against Candida albicans on CAD-CAM denture base: an in-vitro study.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of 3D printing in the fabrication of immediate prosthetic restorations requires the possibility of sterilization. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different sterilization methods on the parameters of 3D-printing materials for dental prosthesis plates compared to conventional acrylic material. Forty-four samples were prepared for each tested material: Denture 3D+ (NextDent, The Netherlands), Denturetec (Saremco, Switzerland), Optiprint Laviva (Dentona, Germany), and Rapid Simplified (Vertex Dental, Netherlands). The impact strength of the samples was tested in a HIT 5.5P instrument (Zwick Roell, Germany) after three sterilization methods (pressurized steam, ethylene oxide, and radiation) and without sterilization as a control group. Significantly higher energy and impact strength were recorded for the conventional acrylic material. For Nextdent material, the recommended method of sterilization in terms of impaction is autoclave or ethylene oxide sterilization, Saremco-ethylene oxide sterilization, and Denton-ethylene oxide or radiation sterilization. Conventional acrylic material has a higher impact strength than 3D-printed material, which may encourage the selection of this material for restorations requiring higher fracture strength. The possibility of sterilizing the Nextdent 3D-printed material in the autoclave without worsening its durability makes it a recommended choice for digital clinical practice.
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.