ArticleCureus2025
A Comparative Analysis of Graphene Versus Zirconia Fixed Dental Prostheses: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives This study set out to compare the mechanical behavior of graphene and zirconia in the context of their potential use in fixed dental prostheses. Specifically, we evaluated three critical properties: Rockwell hardness, to understand surface durability; compressive strength, to assess resistance to biting forces; and flexural strength, to examine performance under bending stress. To approximate real-world conditions, all samples were subjected to thermocycling, simulating the thermal changes typical of the oral cavity. The goal was to explore whether graphene could serve as a viable alternative to zirconia in restorative applications. Methods A systematic in vitro protocol was followed. Standardized specimens of graphene and zirconia were fabricated and subjected to 30,000 thermocycles between 5°C and 55°C. Mechanical tests were conducted using a universal testing machine. Rockwell hardness was measured using a standard durometer, while compressive and flexural strengths were evaluated through load-to-failure testing. Data were statistically analyzed using independent-sample t-tests, with significance defined at p<0.05. Results Zirconia showed markedly higher compressive strength compared to graphene, making it better suited for high-load areas of the mouth. Interestingly, the two materials performed similarly in Rockwell hardness, suggesting comparable surface durability. Flexural strength results were also close, with no significant difference, indicating that graphene may perform well under bending or tensile forces. These outcomes reaffirm zirconia's status as a robust material for prosthodontics while also opening the door for graphene as a lightweight, structurally capable alternative. Conclusion While zirconia continues to outperform in terms of compressive strength, graphene demonstrates meaningful potential due to its comparable flexural strength and hardness, along with the added advantage of being significantly lighter. These findings support further investigation into graphene's role in restorative dentistry, especially in cases where weight, design complexity, or aesthetics demand alternative materials. Future research should explore its biocompatibility, long-term performance, and integration with current dental systems.
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.