ArticleBMC oral health2025
Bond strength of maxillofacial silicone to various three-dimensional printing resins compared to conventional substructures.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBonding between silicone elastomers and rigid substructures is critical to clinical success of extraoral maxillofacial prostheses. This study aimed to investigate the bond strength of silicone elastomers to conventional and alternative 3-dimensional printing resin materials and the effect of artificial aging.
methodsThe bond strength of seven resin substructure materials to a maxillofacial silicone was tested using the 180° peel test without artificial aging and after artificial aging in 14 groups. Test specimens composed of a silicone elastomer bonded to a substructure which were prepared according to ASTM D903-98 standard. A total of 70 specimens were prepared with a maxillofacial silicone bonded with a primer to substructures made of chemically polymerized clear acrylic, heat-polymerized clear acrylic and heat-polymerized pink acrylic, 3-dimensional surgical guide, 3-dimensional denture base, 3-dimensional polyetherketoneketone, and 3-dimensional polyetheretherketone resins (n = 10). Half of the specimens (n = 5 per group) were aged in an environmental chamber (Ci4400 Weather-Ometer, Atlas, Inc., USA) to assess the impact of 360 h of accelerated artificial aging. Peel bond strength values were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and post-hoc comparisons with Bonferroni correction (α = 0.05). Bond failures were classified using confocal microscopy.
resultsSubstructure material, artificial aging, and their interaction significantly affected peel bond strength (p < 0.001). Polyetherketoneketone and polyetheretherketone exhibited significantly lower mean bond strength in non-aged groups (p < 0.05). Within the aged groups, surgical guide and denture base resins demonstrated significantly higher bond strength (p < 0.05). The most common failure type was mixed (71.4%), followed by adhesive (20%), cohesive (9%).
conclusionsThree-dimensional printed surgical guide resin and denture base resin specimens showed higher mean bond strength after artificial aging compared to commonly used conventional resin substructures and three- dimensional printed polyetherketoneketone and polyetheretherketone.
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.