ArticleJournal of dental sciences2025
Impacts of surface characteristics on biological responses and biofilm formation of 3D-printed denture base resins: An in vitro study.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 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.
- Article
- Advances in clear aligner therapy: comparative evaluation of the optical properties and bacterial adhesion of 3D direct-printed and thermoformed aligners.Progress in orthodontics · 2025Article
- Effect of Immersion in Quaternary Ammonium Methacryloxy Silane Mixed Monomer on the Mechanical Properties and Antibacterial Activity of a 3D-Printed Urethane Dimethacrylate Denture Base Resin.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: With advancements in digital technology, fully digital workflow for complete denture fabrication using 3D-printed denture base resin (DBR) has gained increasing clinical acceptance in recent years. However, the surface characteristics, biocompatibility, and biofilm formation of 3D-printed DBR materials remain insufficiently understood. Therefore, in this study, we investigated and analyzed these aspects. Materials and methods: Disk-shaped DBR specimens (Ø 2.5 mm, 3 mm thick) were fabricated using packed (PA), milled (ML), and 3D-printed (3D) processes. All specimens were ground with silicon carbide sandpaper (#600) and ultrasonically cleaned. Surface microtopography and sub-micron roughness were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy, while a goniometer was used to measure contact angles to calculate the surface energy. Human gingival fibroblasts and Results: Microscopic imaging revealed that the 3D group exhibited a more uniformly distributed texture, while it also had the lowest surface roughness (0.85 μm). Additionally, the PA group had the most hydrophobic surface (82.47°) and the highest surface free energy (46.08 mN/m). Notably, no group showed cytotoxic effects after 72 h of testing. In addition, the 3D group demonstrated the lowest biofilm formation after both 24 h and 72 h of microbial culture. Conclusion: 3D-printed DBRs exhibited the lowest surface roughness, maintaining non-cytotoxic and superior resistance to microbial adhesion, suggesting their potential for complete denture fabrication, easy maintenance of oral hygiene, and long-term clinical performance.
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.