ArticlePolymers2025
Evaluating a Novel 3D-Printed Resin for Dental Restorations: Fracture Resistance of Restorations Fabricated by Digital Press Stereolithography.
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.
- Three-Dimensional Printed Materials for Definitive Ceramic and Resin Restorations: A Scoping Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Fracture Resistance of 3D-Printed Hybrid Abutment Crowns Made from a Tooth-Colored Ceramic Filled Hybrid Composite: A Pilot Study.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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An in vitro study evaluated the fracture resistance of four CAD/CAM restorative materials: lithium disilicate ceramic (IPS e.max CAD, EM), hybrid ceramic (Vita Enamic, VE), a polymer-based composite (Cerasmart, CS), and a novel 3D-printed resin (Ceramic Crown, CC) fabricated using digital press stereolithography (DPS) technology. Standardized full-coverage crowns were designed and manufactured for each material. All specimens underwent thermocycling and fracture testing using a universal testing machine. EM exhibited the highest fracture resistance (mean: 440.49 N), while VE showed the lowest (173.82 N). CS (265.49 N) and CC (306.76 N) presented intermediate values without statistically significant differences between them. Stereomicroscopic analysis revealed differences in fracture patterns, with IPS e.max CAD showing smooth, brittle fractures, while hybrid and polymer-based materials exhibited tortuous fracture surfaces. These results suggest that DPS technology achieves mechanical performance for Ceramic Crown comparable to that of milled polymer-based composites, while offering production advantages in terms of time efficiency. As one of the first studies to evaluate Ceramic Crown and DPS technology, these findings provide initial insights into their mechanical behavior. However, further studies are required to validate their clinical performance before widespread use can be recommended.
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.